|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I think I have over thought this waaaaay too much so I'll just post the issue and see what feedback I get and see if I'm stupid or not.
I have a fighter who wants to use a spear sized for a large creature (particularly a giant).
For argument sake lets say he has the fighter archetype that allows him to wield a spear in 1h.
Since this spear is a size category larger then him can he wield it either 1h or 2h at a -2 penalty or is it beyond what would be considered a usable weapon?
i think it would make sense if you have a class ability to use a two handed weapon on one hand you should be able to use one one size larger in two hands but thats my opinion, i think this might be a bit o a rey area where you wll get people arguing over different rules and how they apply to eachother and what makes sense.
That's a lot like Amiri, the Barbarian Iconic. But I think you can't do it:
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.
An ability that lets you wield a 2 handed weapon 1 handed doesn't make the weapon a 1 handed weapon. It's still a 2 handed weapon. Bumping the size up would still make it "something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration" so unwealdable. I think what you COULD do is use a shortspear (1 handed) bumped up one size (now 2 handed), in one hand.
|
Amiri uses a large bastardsword.
Emojones, take a look at phalanx soldier variant; one-hand a d10 polearm with reach and brace properties; take the Pushing Assault feat.
Downside: you forfeit Weapon Training (so why would you do this? Answer: you wouldn't. Thanks, Paizo, for another archetype which is worse than the base class.)
Hello all. I know you feel like you have put this question to bed long ago, but I am still unclear. A pathfinder society player is trying to convince me in his use of an over sized dwarven war ax. He does not have the exotic weapon proficiency feat. What is the word on this?
There are two schools of thought on this. Neither have been officially verified:
1) Exotic Weapons such as the Dwarven War Axe or the Bastard Sword are martial weapons when used in two hands. Using a Large War Axe requires using it in two hands, which means you only need the Martial Weapon Proficiency2) You need the EWP in order to use it one hand, which you need to be able to use a Large version in two hands.
There's an argument for 1, but 2 is almost certainly RAI and a safer bet for organized play.
Normally to be proficient in the waraxe, and thus use it 1handed or use a large version 2handed, you need the EWP. Dwarves get to treat it as martial, so a fighter is proficient in it without the extra feat.
|
A dwarven waraxe is a one-handed weapon as an object, no matter what a users proficiency may or may not be.
A medium creature treats a large waraxe as a two-handed weapon, so it requires two hands to use, regardless of proficiency.
If a creature uses a waraxe in two hands (and you are using a large one in two hands because it's a two-handed weapon for you), the special ability of the waraxe kicks in, which is that 'you may use it as a martial weapon'.
So the EWP is not needed. Not surprising when you realise that, when using an appropriately-sized waraxe, the difference between martial weapon proficiency and exotic weapon proficiency is that the EWP trains you to use it in one hand! So it wouldn't be relevant when you use it in two!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am on the side that you need the EWP feat to use a large dwarven war-ax or bastard sword in 2 hands.
The real question is, Are you doing it for added dice? If so, penalize um. If you're doing it for style, like Amiri... then... not so much.
You'd still need two hands to use something that much larger, but yeah.
|
|
Actually, even when using a large waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon (when you could be using a greatsword), you are trading 2d6 damage for 2d8 (average 9 instead of 7) for an attack penalty of -2.
Think about it. -2 to attack for +2 damage! With Power Attack it'd be -1 for +3! It's a sub-optimal choice, especially for a low-level character. There really is no need to invent a reason to pile an unwarranted extra -4 non-proficiency penalty on top of the -2!
I think I have over thought this waaaaay too much so I'll just post the issue and see what feedback I get and see if I'm stupid or not.
I have a fighter who wants to use a spear sized for a large creature (particularly a giant).
For argument sake lets say he has the fighter archetype that allows him to wield a spear in 1h.
Since this spear is a size category larger then him can he wield it either 1h or 2h at a -2 penalty or is it beyond what would be considered a usable weapon?
The fighter archetype that can wield polearms and spears onehanded can only do so when using a shield.
when using a shield you can't use a twohanded weapon so no, he can't do it.There is a feat that lets you use a quaterstaff onehanded. So you could use a large quaterstaff that looks like a spear twohanded.
The name of the feat is quaterstaff master I think.
I'm sorry to hijack the thread abit, but I don't really understand medium to large weapons if I use a one handed large club but use it in two hands do I get any minus to hit? I found that it might be -2 is that right? I'll be playing a Druid if that changes anything.
I'm sorry to hijack the thread abit, but I don't really understand medium to large weapons if I use a one handed large club but use it in two hands do I get any minus to hit? I found that it might be -2 is that right? I'll be playing a Druid if that changes anything.
yup. It would be a -2.
Thank you.
|
|
This is straight from the Pathfinder PRD-
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.
Based on the advice here, and this text, I would think that a "Medium" character could not use a oversize war-axe as a martial weapon.
|
|
A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon.
The relative sizes of weapon and wielder are not mentioned here, so the normal rules apply. In this case, the 'normal rule' is quoted above!
Are you a medium creature? Yes!
Are you wielding a waraxe two-handed? Yes!
Then, by rule, 'A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon.'
As Malachi said: By RAW, you can use a Large Dwarven War-axe in two hands with martial proficiency. It would be a 2d8 weapon. Sound awesome! (bonus points for 2d8 bastard sword of 19-20/2x.)
Sounds too good, right?
However, do note it is a -2 on your attack roll to do so.
the problem is people are arguing over what is RAW. some people read the RAW one way, other people read the RAW the other way.
|
|
As Malachi said: By RAW, you can use a Large Dwarven War-axe in two hands with martial proficiency. It would be a 2d8 weapon. Sound awesome! (bonus points for 2d8 bastard sword of 19-20/2x.)
Sounds too good, right?
However, do note it is a -2 on your attack roll to do so.
Exactly! And as I've said before, at low levels a -2 to attack is not worth the +2 damage (average for the greatsword you could be using). Power Attack would get you -1 to attack for +3 damage minimum!
As for reading the RAW two ways; there are many rules that are ambiguously written. This is not one of them!
A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon.
I disagree seeing as I am on the side that believes that Raw makes it require an exotic weapon proficiency to wield a size large bastard sword or Dwarven war ax in 2 hands. and without that feat you can not wield them at all. The weapon is martial in 2 hands which means it is impossible to wield if it is size large. if you want to wield a large one you need exotic weapon proficiency to make it one handed per RAW.
I would just like to say that Phalanx Soldier doesn't allow the use of a Large Longspear or such. Mainly because you wouldn't have two hands to wield it do to needing a Shield.
A Shortspear just becomes a Spear or Longspear (can't remember which).
Finally, Phalanx Soldier is a Defensive Archetype don't insult it just because it isn't built for Damage Dealing.
Now on the Bastard Sword & Dwarven Waraxe. Someone related to the PFS organization and rulings commented before how it does require the EWP Feat in that weapon.
Strongarm Bracers from 3.5 Magic Item Compendium would do the trick. They allow you to wield weapons as if you were one size larger.
So a large Phalanx Soldier would be able to wield a large Spear in one hand, when all other requirements are met.
Strongarm Bracers from 3.5 Magic Item Compendium would do the trick. They allow you to wield weapons as if you were one size larger.
So a large Phalanx Soldier would be able to wield a large Spear in one hand, when all other requirements are met.
Hmm, That would allow it. As would Powerful Build.
|
|
I disagree seeing as I am on the side that believes that Raw makes it require an exotic weapon proficiency to wield a size large bastard sword or Dwarven war ax in 2 hands. and without that feat you can not wield them at all. The weapon is martial in 2 hands which means it is impossible to wield if it is size large. if you want to wield a large one you need exotic weapon proficiency to make it one handed per RAW.
What RAW are you talking about?
It can't be the special rules in the description of the weapon, as they say 'A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon'!
It can't be the rules about wielding inappropriately-sized weapons, as a waraxe is a one-handed weapon, and a medium creature wielding a large one-handed weapon treats it as a two-handed weapon. The proficiency a wielder may or may not have does not change this at all!
It can't be Exotic Weapon Proficiency, as that eliminates the non-proficiency penalty for using the waraxe one-handed, and we are wielding it in two!
The fallacy is the belief that the lack of EWP somehow turns the axe into a two-handed weapon! It does not!
The rules for using oversized weapons are comprehensive. They are the change in handedness per size difference and the -2 attack penalty per size difference. No part of these rules let's you ignore specific rules for individual weapon types!
When the rules say that the axe is a one-handed weapon, and the lack of EWP does not change it to being a two-handed weapon, then a large axe counts as a two-handed weapon, not a three-handed unusable weapon. That's RAW. quote the RAW that says different.
The rules for the axe do not say that 'if you only have Martial Weapon Proficiency then a waraxe sized for you counts as a two-handed weapon', even though that's what some believe. I'm sure we both have access to the same CRB with the same wording in the descriptions of the dwarven waraxe and the bastard sword. The difference between us is that I've read mine! Despite what some wish it said, what it actually says is, 'A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon'! We can all use a one-handed weapon in two hands, but that does not change it into a two-handed weapon! It remains a one-handed weapon used in two hands!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree seeing as I am on the side that believes that Raw makes it require an exotic weapon proficiency to wield a size large bastard sword or Dwarven war ax in 2 hands. and without that feat you can not wield them at all. The weapon is martial in 2 hands which means it is impossible to wield if it is size large. if you want to wield a large one you need exotic weapon proficiency to make it one handed per RAW.What RAW are you talking about?
It can't be the special rules in the description of the weapon, as they say 'A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon'!
It can't be the rules about wielding inappropriately-sized weapons, as a waraxe is a one-handed weapon, and a medium creature wielding a large one-handed weapon treats it as a two-handed weapon. The proficiency a wielder may or may not have does not change this at all!
It can't be Exotic Weapon Proficiency, as that eliminates the non-proficiency penalty for using the waraxe one-handed, and we are wielding it in two!
The fallacy is the belief that the lack of EWP somehow turns the axe into a two-handed weapon! It does not!
The rules for using oversized weapons are comprehensive. They are the change in handedness per size difference and the -2 attack penalty per size difference. No part of these rules let's you ignore specific rules for individual weapon types!
When the rules say that the axe is a one-handed weapon, and the lack of EWP does not change it to being a two-handed weapon, then a large axe counts as a two-handed weapon, not a three-handed unusable weapon. That's RAW. quote the RAW that says different.
The rules for the axe do not say that 'if you only have Martial Weapon Proficiency then a waraxe sized for you counts as a two-handed weapon', even though that's what some believe. I'm sure we both have access to the same CRB with the same wording in the descriptions of the dwarven waraxe and the bastard...
Just because we disagree does not mean you need to imply I did not read the rules. if it was as clear as you believe it is then it would never have been brought up in the first place. you interpret the rules one way and I interpret them another way. We disagree on the interpretation of what the RAW means. Until one of the designers comes on and clarifies the rules it will be up to interpretation. If it truly was so clear cut as you put it it would not be on the forums. Try not to insult people because you disagree with them. It's Rude.
|
|
...I disagree seeing as I am on the side that believes that Raw makes it require an exotic weapon proficiency to wield a size large bastard sword or Dwarven war ax in 2 hands. and without that feat you can not wield them at all. The weapon is martial in 2 hands which means it is impossible to wield if it is size large. if you want to wield a large one you need exotic weapon proficiency to make it one handed per RAW.What RAW are you talking about?
It can't be the special rules in the description of the weapon, as they say 'A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon'!
It can't be the rules about wielding inappropriately-sized weapons, as a waraxe is a one-handed weapon, and a medium creature wielding a large one-handed weapon treats it as a two-handed weapon. The proficiency a wielder may or may not have does not change this at all!
It can't be Exotic Weapon Proficiency, as that eliminates the non-proficiency penalty for using the waraxe one-handed, and we are wielding it in two!
The fallacy is the belief that the lack of EWP somehow turns the axe into a two-handed weapon! It does not!
The rules for using oversized weapons are comprehensive. They are the change in handedness per size difference and the -2 attack penalty per size difference. No part of these rules let's you ignore specific rules for individual weapon types!
When the rules say that the axe is a one-handed weapon, and the lack of EWP does not change it to being a two-handed weapon, then a large axe counts as a two-handed weapon, not a three-handed unusable weapon. That's RAW. quote the RAW that says different.
The rules for the axe do not say that 'if you only have Martial Weapon Proficiency then a waraxe sized for you counts as a two-handed weapon', even though that's what some believe. I'm sure we both have access to the same CRB with the same wording in the descriptions
Yes, I was rude, and for that I apologise.
It gets very frustrating to have rules which are so clear be disputed as if they were ambiguous!
I've quoted the RAW for the special ability of the weapon, referred to the RAW on weapon proficiencies, using inappropriately-sized weapons, even the weapon's status as a one-handed weapon on the weapons tables. I've even identified the common fallacy that using a one-handed weapon somehow turns it into a two-handed weapon, either in general or for bastard swords and waraxes in particular.
What RAW evidence is there to counter all this?
You have cited a lot of rules regarding these weapons and inappropriately sized weapons, all rules I have read before this thread was ever started.
I have a simple question for you, can you use a Bastard Sword or a Dwarven War Ax in one hand without taking EWP?
The Answer is no you can't.
Due to its size, a bastard sword is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
Description of the Bastard Sword, it is a Martial Two Handed weapon which means as a martial two handed weapon you can not use a large Bastard sword if you are medium sized, with EWP it becomes a one handed weapon that allows you to use a large version of the weapon in two hands. very simple. RAW.
I see that we will not see eye to eye on this so we will just have to agree to disagree.
You have cited a lot of rules regarding these weapons and inappropriately sized weapons, all rules I have read before this thread was ever started.
I have a simple question for you, can you use a Bastard Sword or a Dwarven War Ax in one hand without taking EWP?
The Answer is no you can't.
Due to its size, a bastard sword is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
Description of the Bastard Sword, it is a Martial Two Handed weapon which means as a martial two handed weapon you can not use a large Bastard sword if you are medium sized, with EWP it becomes a one handed weapon that allows you to use a large version of the weapon in two hands. very simple. RAW.
You can, though, just as you can wield any other exotic weapon, medium or large sized, without taking the feat. You simply take a penalty for non-proficiency.
You can, though, just as you can wield any other exotic weapon, medium or large sized, without taking the feat. You simply take a penalty for non-proficiency.You have cited a lot of rules regarding these weapons and inappropriately sized weapons, all rules I have read before this thread was ever started.
I have a simple question for you, can you use a Bastard Sword or a Dwarven War Ax in one hand without taking EWP?
The Answer is no you can't.
Due to its size, a bastard sword is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
Description of the Bastard Sword, it is a Martial Two Handed weapon which means as a martial two handed weapon you can not use a large Bastard sword if you are medium sized, with EWP it becomes a one handed weapon that allows you to use a large version of the weapon in two hands. very simple. RAW.
true.
Out of curiosity tho, are these rules different than 3.x? I seem to remember in 3.x, they actually were listed as 2h and the EWP did change them to 1h, but that might just be a faulty memory, and I sold all my 3rd ed stuff 2yrs ago.
That I dont know. I have not looked at my 3.x books in years since 4th ed. came out.
|
|
You have cited a lot of rules regarding these weapons and inappropriately sized weapons, all rules I have read before this thread was ever started.
I have a simple question for you, can you use a Bastard Sword or a Dwarven War Ax in one hand without taking EWP?
The Answer is no you can't.
Due to its size, a bastard sword is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
Description of the Bastard Sword, it is a Martial Two Handed weapon which means as a martial two handed weapon you can not use a large Bastard sword if you are medium sized, with EWP it becomes a one handed weapon that allows you to use a large version of the weapon in two hands. very simple. RAW.
Actually, the answer is, 'Yes, you can! You just take a -4 attack penalty!'
This is the point! It is never a 'martial two-handed weapon'.
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.
But we're not using it in one hand! We're using it in two!
Description of the Bastard Sword, it is a Martial Two Handed weapon which means as a martial two handed weapon you can not use a large Bastard sword if you are medium sized, with EWP it becomes a one handed weapon that allows you to use a large version of the weapon in two hands. very simple. RAW.
This is simply not true:-
You say that a bastard sword is a martial two-handed weapon. Untrue. It is on the weapons tables as an exotic one-handed weapon. It is simply not on any table as either a martial weapon or as a two-handed weapon. I invite you to provide a RAW quote; you won't be able to because it doesn't exist. I wouldn't put myself up for ridicule if it were possible to provide such a quote.It is not possible to use a two-handed weapon in one hand, even at a penalty (barring specific feats and special abilities which aren't in play here). However, it is possible to use a bastard sword in one hand without the EWP, but at a -4 penalty. Why? Because it is a one-handed weapon!
I'm sorry but in the description of the weapons they clearly state they are martial two handed weapons without EWP.
The fact that they do not appear on the martial two handed weapon table does not change this. It is clearly explained in the description.
In 3.0 they were a 2-Handed Martial Weapon EWP made them usable 1-Handed. But that ruleset Also gave use the Mess if a Weapon Known as the Full-Blade.
3.5 it was changed to something similar to how it is with Pathfinder.
Malachi is right. It does work the way he is saying. In 3.5 do to the wording of the phrase it wasn't legal but Pathfinder it is.
But I am pretty sure in PFS it is required for you to have EWP for some reason. If you can even wield Oversized Weapons in it.
EDIT: the phrase says treated not they are. You are thinking of 3.5's phrasing. At least early 3.5.
If I am wrong then can you explain to me why Amiri (The Iconic Barbarian for Pathfinder) has EWP Bastard sword for her large Bastard sword if it is unnecessary?
|
|
Out of curiosity tho, are these rules different than 3.x? I seem to remember in 3.x, they actually were listed as 2h and the EWP did change them to 1h, but that might just be a faulty memory, and I sold all my 3rd ed stuff 2yrs ago.
I ask because so many people are so sure that a BSword/DWAxe are listed as 2h, even tho in every edition of the CRB(and the SRD/errata) they are under 1h Exotic.
I still play 3.5, and one of my characters uses a +5 throwing adamantine bastard sword, sized appropriately for him, in two hands (usually, although he does have the EWP).
So, why not a greatsword, or a large bastard sword? After all, I do have the EWP, so no-one could object.
Because I want to throw it and have it return (via Weapon Crystal). As a one-handed weapon I can throw it as one attack in my full attack sequence, but it takes a standard action to throw a two-handed weapon, which cannot be folded into a full attack.
In 3.5 the special description of both bastard sword and waraxe is the same as in PF, and it was the same in 3.0. It is always a one-handed weapon, in every edition from 3.0 to PF.
The rule for these two weapons has been unchanged since the last millenium! The 'fallacy' I talked about above? I thought the same way until a couple of months ago! For over 13 years I (like many others) assumed that it was a one-handed weapon if you had the EWP, and it was a two-handed weapon if you didn't. I was wrong!
I never needed to examine it closely before, so I just 'assumed' and didn't think any further. But when I did examine it closely, I realised that my assumption had been wrong! It didn't become a two-handed weapon if you didn't have the EWP! It's just that if you use it in two hands then you only need martial weapon proficiency!
EDIT: I just checked both my 3.0 and 3.5 PHBs, and what I said above is true, but in 3.0, instead of light, one-handed and two-handed, they used the terms small, medium-sized and large. I'm sure you can see why they changed the game terms.
Weapon Crystal?
And It is simply for her to be PFS Legal and the fact that they are made for Fluff rather than Optimal Anything.
If the weapons in question were listed as martial two-handed weapons, with the descriptions stating that they could be used in one hand with the EWP, I doubt that we would be having this argument.
Functionally, it's the same, except for this one particular case. I also suspect that if the developers were to go back and adjust the weapon listings to reflect intent, that's exactly what they would do.
|
|
Weapon Crystal?
And It is simply for her to be PFS Legal and the fact that they are made for Fluff rather than Optimal Anything.
Weapon Crystals are in the 3.5 Magic Item Compendium (an excellent book!).
They come in several varieties; I'm using a Greater Crystal of Return, which allows me to draw (the weapon to which it is attached) as a free action, to summon it to me as a move action if it is within 30-feet, and gives the weapon the returning property.
|
|
If I am wrong then can you explain to me why Amiri (The Iconic Barbarian for Pathfinder) has EWP Bastard sword for her large Bastard sword if it is unnecessary?
It may not be needed for her large bastard sword, but she has obviously received training in normal-sized weapons before she came across the big one!
I'm sorry but in the description of the weapons they clearly state they are martial two handed weapons without EWP.
Nope!
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
If I am wrong then can you explain to me why Amiri (The Iconic Barbarian for Pathfinder) has EWP Bastard sword for her large Bastard sword if it is unnecessary?It may not be needed for her large bastard sword, but she has obviously received training in normal-sized weapons before she came across the big one!
I'm sorry but in the description of the weapons they clearly state they are martial two handed weapons without EWP.Nope!
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
I am sorry but I disagree on your interpretation on the meaning of the discription, I feel you are over analyzing the phrasing.
I am thinking Weapon crystals might provide me with something I am wanting to try for my campaign setting.
And the post I was referring to is apparently horribly outdated... Season 2 I believe...
And most things the Iconics have are for Fluff.
Heck, using any Stat Block as evidence of R.A.W. is a horrible idea. I mean by that logic it is now legal yo use Spring Attack+Vital Strike together. Why? A NPC Codex Stat Block says it is a viable tactic.
Heck, I seen one that said Power Attack worked with a Bow.
Sorry if I seem a bit rude.
|
|
I am sorry but I disagree on your interpretation on the meaning of the discription, I feel you are over analyzing the phrasing.
Thanks for this. It helps me understand why you're not getting your head around it. I've slept since my last post, and my patience has returned. : )
The game rules for weapons, and how they are used, are extensive and unambiguous (compared to some I could mention!).
There are two concepts at work here, both simultaneously affecting weapon use in slightly different ways.
The first concept concerns what a weapon actually is, in terms of light/one-handed/two-handed.
The second concept concerns how a weapon is used, in terms of being used in one hand or in two hands.
The rules recognise this, and specifically mention how they interact in the equipment section under the heading 'Light, One-Handed and Two-Handed Melee Weapons'. This section not only discusses how many hands are required to use each category of weapon and how the Str bonus affects the damage dealt with each, it also calls out the rules for using light and one-handed weapons in two hands when only one is required!
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.
A bastard sword, like a dwarven waraxe (or a longsword or battle-axe etc.), is a one-handed weapon, and as such it may be used in either one OR two hands. When a one-handed weapon is used in two hands, it does not become a two-handed weapon!
Weapon Hardness Hit Points
Light blade 10 2
One-handed blade 10 5
Two-handed blade 10 10
As an object, a one-handed blade (such as a longsword or a bastard sword) has 5 hit points. A two-handed blade (such as a greatsword or a falchion) has 10 hit points.
How a weapon is used does not change what it is! if that were the case, then a longsword or a bastard sword would have a different number of hit points depending if it was being used in one or two hands! This is an absurd conclusion!
A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training.
This 'special training' is the ability to use it in one hand without a -4 attack penalty, represented in the game by the EWP feat. You don't need this 'special training' to use it in two hands, so ordinary Martial Weapon Proficiency is enough. This is represented in a special rule that covers the bastard sword and the dwarven waraxe specifically:-
A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
This special rule doesn't change the weapon into a different thing depending on how many hands are using it or what proficiency the wielder may or may not have, resulting in different hit points at different times. Weapons are not quantum effects!
You're not alone in making the assumption you did. I made the same assumption before I was directed to actually read and understand the consequences of the rules in the description. Since Monte Cooke first wrote it in the 1990s I'm sure it has been mis-understood by many, including by some who, a decade later, became game designers of Pathfinder!