Nope, that's perfectly legit. Each round he would determine which of the four heads available to him would be the fortress mode one (with reach), and which would be the single one he could use in Meteor mode. The only restriction is that he has to choose one from each weapon.
It would be hugely expensive to enchant in any useful way, though. So you're losing out on +X enchants to hit, on top of the -2 for dual wielding and the -2 for jotungrip.... It'd be expensive to do and hard to hit with, but it's legal.
So, wielding a double weapon with one hand as average PC, and wielding it with one hand using Jotungrip is a treated exactly the same in all ways, except when using Jotungrip you suffer a penalty?
That sounds mind bogglingly silly.
If you can tell me how the average PC is wielding a double weapon in one hand, I may be better able to answer your question. As far as I know, there are only three possibilities:
JotungripQuarterstaff Master
Using a smaller weapon to change its encumbrance from 2-hand to 1-hand
None of those three methods have any text to contradict this:
A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
One of them explicitly confirms it.
I'm not saying you can't do it. I'm saying this is how I'd rule if I were the GM because I think the text is pretty straightforward about this.
|
I am still confused as to how a Titan Mauler would be unable to wield it in Meteor mode, and though be only able to attack with one end, be forced to switch to fortress.
In fact, I am not fully disagreeing with you redward, as I am not implying that a Titan Mauler can attack with both ends while wielding a Meteor Hammer in Meteor mode with one hand, but that he is not forced to switch modes, as he is using it as any other double weapon.
In switching modes, the wielder loses reach, but can attack with both ends, but that does not mean he must.
In fact, for a common PC to wield a Meteor Hammer in one hand, he would need to be in Meteor mode, and wield it as any other double weapon.
A Titan Mauler can wield two Meteor Hammers, each one in a different mode, but only able to attack with one end of either Meteor Hammer he is wielding.
I am still confused as to how a Titan Mauler would be unable to wield it in Meteor mode, and though be only able to attack with one end, be forced to switch to fortress.
In fact, I am not fully disagreeing with you redward, as I am not implying that a Titan Mauler can attack with both ends while wielding a Meteor Hammer in Meteor mode with one hand, but that he is not forced to switch modes, as he is using it as any other double weapon.
In switching modes, the wielder loses reach, but can attack with both ends, but that does not mean he must.
In fact, for a common PC to wield a Meteor Hammer in one hand, he would need to be in Meteor mode, and wield it as any other double weapon.A Titan Mauler can wield two Meteor Hammers, each one in a different mode, but only able to attack with one end of either Meteor Hammer he is wielding.
But a common PC is not wielding it in one hand. He is wielding it in both hands. When you use a double weapon as a double weapon, you're not making an attack with each hand. You're making two attacks using both hands. Which is why that restriction is explicitly made.
The wording I'm focused on is "in meteor mode you use it as a double weapon." So anything that applies specifically to double weapons applies to the meteor hammer in meteor mode.
You can't use a double weapon in one hand as a double weapon. A meteor hammer in meteor mode is a double weapon used as a double weapon.
With Jotungrip, "a titan mauler may choose to wield a two-handed melee weapon in one hand with a –2 penalty on attack rolls while doing so." It doesn't say anything about double weapons.
If you're saying Jotungrip excepts that restriction, "[a] creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round," then it excepts the whole thing. So you can use it in one hand as a double weapon. And you can attack with both ends in the same round. It's all or nothing.
I think the breakdown here is you're saying that double weapons are a subset of two-handed weapons, so anything granted to two-handed weapons by Jotungrip are inherited by double weapons.
I'm saying that double weapons are a specific exception to normal two-handed weapons rules, so unless that special exception is addressed, you can't assume those modifications are inherited.
Is that right, or am I missing something else in your argument?
Rule: A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
Requirements: Wielding a Double weapon in 1 hand
Effects: Can only attack with 1 end in any given round
No.
Two clauses:
1. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon
2. When wielding a double weapon in one hand only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round
It may be a case of bad wording, but as written, you cannot use a double weapon as a double weapon in one hand.
What does using a double weapon as a double weapon (UADWAADW) mean?
A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
So there are exactly two ways you can wield a double weapon. One is as a two-handed weapon. The other is the recursive UADWAADW definition, which is using it as two weapons. There's no third option. You can use it as a double weapon and make only one attack, but you're still using it as a double weapon.
There are exactly two ways you can wield a Meteor Hammer. Fortress Mode and Meteor Mode. If you can wield the 2-handed Meteor hammer in one hand, there is no further rule restricting you from using it in Fortress mode. But there is a rule restricting you from using it in Meteor mode, because to do so is to use it as a double weapon.
Or, put more simply:
A Meteor Hammer is a double weapon
Meteor Mode: In meteor mode you use it as a double weapon. (UADWAADW)
A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't UADWAADW
A creature wielding a Meteor Hammer in one hand can't use it in Meteor Mode
It doesn't matter how many ends you do or don't want to use. You simply can't wield it in that manner with one hand.
If, on the other hand, you argue that Jotungrip supersedes this rule, then you can use as many ends as you want, because if you supersede one of those clauses, you supersede both.
I think that text is the result of incomplete errata.
Page 144—In the Weapon Qualities section, in the Special section, in the Double paragraph in the second sentence, replace “A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon” with “You can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed”.
You used to be able to use any double weapon in one hand, using only one end of it.
They changed part of it, but left a fragment which is out of place and doesn't really belong.
Before the errata, you had three ways of using it. Lets rephrase the rules to make it clear:
You could use a double weapon three ways:
Puma Style: You fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, TWF penalties, etc.
Rhino Style: You use it as a two-handed weapon, attacking with only one end of it. You use the weapon with both hands, applying normal two-handed weapon bonuses and effects. It doesn't function as a double weapon when used this way.
Crab Style: You use it one-handed, attacking with only one end of it. It doesn't function as a double weapon when used this way, and bonuses for two-handed weapons do not apply.
They basically removed Crab Style, but missed the redundant text in the other Double Weapons section.
So the question is: Does the errant line of text refer ONLY to Crab Style, or is it a global rule affecting every method of wielding the weapon?
I think the intent was to make sure the wizard with a bonded quarterstaff using it in one hand couldn't TWF with a hand free. I think the Titan Mauler, using it as a two-handed weapon, even in just one hand, is an unintended casualty of editing.
Rule: A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
Requirements: Wielding a Double weapon in 1 hand
Effects: Can only attack with 1 end in any given roundNo.
Two clauses:
1. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon
2. When wielding a double weapon in one hand only one end of the weapon can be used in any given roundIt may be a case of bad wording, but as written, you cannot use a double weapon as a double weapon in one hand.
What does using a double weapon as a double weapon (UADWAADW) mean?
A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.So there are exactly two ways you can wield a double weapon. One is as a two-handed weapon. The other is the recursive UADWAADW definition, which is using it as two weapons. There's no third option. You can use it as a double weapon and make only one attack, but you're still using it as a double weapon.
I count three clauses.
1) You can fight with both ends as if with two weapons.
2) You can use it two-handed and attack with one end.
3) If you're using it in one hand, you can't use it as a double weapon.
What does "use it as a double weapon" mean? See #1.
I think that text is the result of incomplete errata.
Page 144—In the Weapon Qualities section, in the Special section, in the Double paragraph in the second sentence, replace “A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon” with “You can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed”.You used to be able to use any double weapon in one hand, using only one end of it.
They changed part of it, but left a fragment which is out of place and doesn't really belong.
That's very interesting, and would certainly change my reading. Unfortunately, as I said before, I only play PFS, where RAW is law.
I count three clauses.1) You can fight with both ends as if with two weapons.
2) You can use it two-handed and attack with one end.
3) If you're using it in one hand, you can't use it as a double weapon.What does "use it as a double weapon" mean? See #1.
Right. So option 3) says that when wielding it in one hand, option 1) is not available. What does that leave?
Right. So option 3) says that when wielding it in one hand, option 1) is not available. What does that leave?
I count three clauses.1) You can fight with both ends as if with two weapons.
2) You can use it two-handed and attack with one end.
3) If you're using it in one hand, you can't use it as a double weapon.What does "use it as a double weapon" mean? See #1.
Attacking with a single end. The same as you would if you moved and made a single attack.
If you're thinking that because #3 prevents #1, that #2 is the only option left, stop and think about that logic: "I'm holding it in one hand. Because of that, I can't use it as a double weapon. That only leaves the possibility of using it as a two-handed weapon. Therefore, I'm forced to use it as a two handed weapon because I'm holding it in one hand."
If you weren't thinking that, then what other option do you see?
Right. So option 3) says that when wielding it in one hand, option 1) is not available. What does that leave?
I count three clauses.1) You can fight with both ends as if with two weapons.
2) You can use it two-handed and attack with one end.
3) If you're using it in one hand, you can't use it as a double weapon.What does "use it as a double weapon" mean? See #1.
Attacking with a single end. The same as you would if you moved and made a single attack.
If you're thinking that because #3 prevents #1, that #2 is the only option left, stop and think about that logic: "I'm holding it in one hand. Because of that, I can't use it as a double weapon. That only leaves the possibility of using it as a two-handed weapon. Therefore, I'm forced to use it as a two handed weapon because I'm holding it in one hand."
If you weren't thinking that, then what other option do you see?
I'm not saying it makes sense. I'm saying that's how it's written.
I'm not saying it makes sense. I'm saying that's how it's written.Right. So option 3) says that when wielding it in one hand, option 1) is not available. What does that leave?
I count three clauses.1) You can fight with both ends as if with two weapons.
2) You can use it two-handed and attack with one end.
3) If you're using it in one hand, you can't use it as a double weapon.What does "use it as a double weapon" mean? See #1.
Attacking with a single end. The same as you would if you moved and made a single attack.
If you're thinking that because #3 prevents #1, that #2 is the only option left, stop and think about that logic: "I'm holding it in one hand. Because of that, I can't use it as a double weapon. That only leaves the possibility of using it as a two-handed weapon. Therefore, I'm forced to use it as a two handed weapon because I'm holding it in one hand."
If you weren't thinking that, then what other option do you see?
And I'm saying that you're reading more into the text than is actually written there.
When there's two ways to read the rules, and one of them leads to a logical contradiction and the other doesn't, then (barring any outside evidence) the one that makes sense is clearly what was intended. Because the rules are written to make sense.
I have a longsword sized for me. It's a one handed weapon. I can use it in one or two hands.
I have a greatsword sized for me. It's a two handed weapon. I can only use it in two hands.
I have a greatsword sized for a small creature. It's a two handed weapon, but I wield it as if it was a one handed weapon. I can use it in one or two hands.
I have a quarterstaff sized for me. It's a two handed double weapon. I can only use it in two hands, but I can choose whether to treat it as TWF or 2HF.
I have a quarterstaff sized for a small creature. It's a two handed double weapon, but I wield it as if was a one handed double weapon. I can use it in one hand (in which case it effectively loses the "double" property) or two hands (in which case I can choose whether to treat it as TWF or 2HF).
I have a longsword sized for me. It's a one handed weapon. I can use it in one or two hands.
I have a greatsword sized for me. It's a two handed weapon. I can only use it in two hands.
I have a greatsword sized for a small creature. It's a two handed weapon, but I wield it as if it was a one handed weapon. I can use it in one or two hands.
I have a quarterstaff sized for me. It's a two handed double weapon. I can only use it in two hands, but I can choose whether to treat it as TWF or 2HF.
I have a quarterstaff sized for a small creature. It's a two handed double weapon, but I wield it as if was a one handed double weapon. I can use it in one hand (in which case it effectively loses the "double" property) or two hands (in which case I can choose whether to treat it as TWF or 2HF).
Agreed on all counts.
Now if you are using a small meteor hammer in one hand, it has lost the "double" property.
When using the meteor hammer in meteor mode, you are using it as a double weapon.
So you can't use it in meteor mode.
In practical terms, all you can do is hold it by one end and swing it because you don't have the other hand to hold the rest of the chain and swing the ball around as a shield. Or, because RAW, a double weapon (meteor hammer) cannot be used in one hand as a double weapon (meteor mode).
I have a longsword sized for me. It's a one handed weapon. I can use it in one or two hands.
I have a greatsword sized for me. It's a two handed weapon. I can only use it in two hands.
I have a greatsword sized for a small creature. It's a two handed weapon, but I wield it as if it was a one handed weapon. I can use it in one or two hands.
I have a quarterstaff sized for me. It's a two handed double weapon. I can only use it in two hands, but I can choose whether to treat it as TWF or 2HF.
I have a quarterstaff sized for a small creature. It's a two handed double weapon, but I wield it as if was a one handed double weapon. I can use it in one hand (in which case it effectively loses the "double" property) or two hands (in which case I can choose whether to treat it as TWF or 2HF).Agreed on all counts.
Now if you are using a small meteor hammer in one hand, it has lost the "double" property.
When using the meteor hammer in meteor mode, you are using it as a double weapon.
So you can't use it in meteor mode.
In practical terms, all you can do is hold it by one end and swing it because you don't have the other hand to hold the rest of the chain and swing the ball around as a shield. Or, because RAW, a double weapon (meteor hammer) cannot be used in one hand as a double weapon (meteor mode).
I'll continue the analogy.
You may use this weapon in two different ways:
Meteor: In meteor mode you use it as a double weapon.
Fortress: In fortress mode you cannot use it as a double weapon but gain reach and a +1 shield bonus to AC.
Switching between these two modes is a free action decided at the start of your turn.
I have a meteor hammer sized for me. It's a two handed double weapon, which can also be used as a two handed reach weapon. I can only use it in two hands, but I can choose whether to treat it as a double weapon (which then enables me to make the choice between TWF or 2HF) or as a reach weapon.
I have a meteor hammer sized for a small creature. It's a two handed double weapon which can also be used as a two handed reach weapon, but I wield it as if was a one handed double weapon which can also be used as a one handed reach weapon. I can use it in one hand (in which case it effectively loses the "double" property) or two hands (in which case I can choose whether to treat it as a double weapon (which then enables me to make the choice between TWF or 2HF) or as a reach weapon).Ok, my head is spinning now. I can try to redo that as a tree if it's too hard to follow.
-------------
The synopsis is that "use it as a double weapon" means "follow the double weapon rules". The double weapon rules say "if you use this in one hand, you only attack with one end." So a meteor hammer held in one hand is a double weapon which you can only use one end of to attack (just like a quarterstaff held in one hand). Nothing in the meteor hammer description says "if you can only attack with one end you must be using it in fortress mode".
The synopsis is that "use it as a double weapon" means "follow the double weapon rules". The double weapon rules say "if you use this in one hand, you only attack with one end." So a meteor hammer held in one hand is a double weapon which you can only use one end of to attack (just like a quarterstaff held in one hand). Nothing in the meteor hammer description says "if you can only attack with one end you must be using it in fortress mode"
I understand what you're saying. And if you took out the one clause that you keep glossing over, "[a] creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon...," we would be in total agreement.
I agree this is likely not the intent. I agree it would be an arbitrary distinction to make for double weapons. If you read Grick's post, you'll see that it is more likely than not a copy-paste error. But honestly, that's how it reads to me as written. And as a PFS player and judge, I have to play it as written.
So, one handed or two handed double weapons take the same amount of effort to wield as double weapons?
I have no interest in trying to justify the rule. I didn't write it. If you can point out what in the text I'm missing or misreading I'd be happy to discuss the matter further.
It's a matter of justifying an interpretation of the rules.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't see how your interpretation is supported by the text. And I don't feel like going through another two pages arguing over what appears to be a copy-paste error.