|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still think it is a leap of faith not logic that from RAW that because a 1H weapon wielded in two hands gets 1.5xSTR that is IS therefore a 2H weapon because a 2H weapon also gets 1.5xSTR. These statements of 1.5xSTR are in different paragraphs and under different headings. This 1H weapon becomes 'effectively' a 2H weapon is an inference and not a fact RAW. I read that as "I'm swinging with more oomph. Not my weapon now has the characteristics of an actual 2H weapon" as the reason for the 1.5xSTR.
S.
|
Are Pushing Assault and Shield of Swings activated when a medium PC wields small sized two handed weapons?
Does it matter if they are wielding them in one or two hands?
This is a really good point. If a longsword sized for a medium creature is still a one-handed weapon even if it's being used as a two-handed weapon by a small creature, than a greatsword sized for a halfling being wielded one-handed by a human is still a two-handed weapon and qualifies for Shield of Swings. Of course, you're taking a -2 to hit in exchange for a relatively small AC bonus... But that's somewhat beside the point.
|
|
Or from a fluff position. A long sword doesn't have the hand space to effectively use neat 2H combat techniques that a true 2H sword has. The fighting styles would be rather different and training to do cool things with a true 2H sword may not translate well to the cramped hilt of a long sword?
Actually my players just accepted it to due 'grey areas' - which usually end up being exploited in very silly ways spoiling the game.
S.
|
|
This is a really good point. If a longsword sized for a medium creature is still a one-handed weapon even if it's being used as a two-handed weapon by a small creature, than a greatsword sized for a halfling being wielded one-handed by a human is still a two-handed weapon and qualifies for Shield of Swings. Of course, you're taking a -2 to hit in exchange for a relatively small AC bonus... But that's somewhat beside the point.Are Pushing Assault and Shield of Swings activated when a medium PC wields small sized two handed weapons?
Does it matter if they are wielding them in one or two hands?
The rules on weapon size vs character size state a shift in size. A human long sword IS a 2H in the hands of a halfling. It actually uses the term "weapon designation" change.
I agree with Grick 94% of the time on these forums. This is the one time I have found so far that I do not.
-edit- If using both hands on a one-handed weapon made it a two-handed weapon, Power Attack wouldn't need to call it out separately. When it says "if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier" it's listing three different states.
People are human. Some people can read rule A and apply it as a constant in any situation where A applies, no more needs to be said. Unfortunately there are more people out there that don't fully understand all aspects of rule A and need a little nudge when it may be unclear if how "rule A is implied here".
Example: The law (where I live) states you CANNOT make a U-turn on any intersection controlled by a traffic light unless a sign SPECIFICALLY says that you can.
To me, this would mean that a "No U-turn" sign at an intersection controlled by a traffic light is unnecessary and redundant. But they are all over the place! Because at particular intersections, U-turns are an especially bad idea, so there is a reminder.
I feel that the wording of Power Attack could have just as easily said "If your damage bonus from STR is 1.5, then..." which would have eliminated the need to go into detail about listing the different ways in which your damage may already be 1.5 times your STR modifier. Including more detail, or reminding people how they can get 1.5 times damage from STR shouldn't be looked at as a limitation to how things should be worded at all times. Just because something uses more examples in one case, and not a lot in another doesn't mean they don't act the same especially when the root feat (Power Attack) is the one with more info in it.
As a GM I have no problem letting someone "benefit" from these feats with a weapon that does inherently less damage (smaller die) if that is how they wield their weapon. With many examples of "one handed" weapons being wielded in two hands (Bastard sword, Aldori Dueling blade, Dwarven waraxe) as the accepted and "normal", I don't see the need to create a special "exceptions" list for the rule. Intent is pretty big when judging Rules as Intended to me. And if the intent is wielding a weapon two handed, there you go.
I realize as I write this that there will always be exceptions to every rule, but let them come to you, don't go looking for them.
Just my 2 copper. GM mileage will vary.
|
|
The rules on weapon size vs character size state a shift in size. A human long sword IS a 2H in the hands of a halfling. It actually uses the term "weapon designation" change.This is a really good point. If a longsword sized for a medium creature is still a one-handed weapon even if it's being used as a two-handed weapon by a small creature, than a greatsword sized for a halfling being wielded one-handed by a human is still a two-handed weapon and qualifies for Shield of Swings. Of course, you're taking a -2 to hit in exchange for a relatively small AC bonus... But that's somewhat beside the point.Are Pushing Assault and Shield of Swings activated when a medium PC wields small sized two handed weapons?
Does it matter if they are wielding them in one or two hands?
Wraithstrike would disagree with you here based on the earlier trending of this thread, at least if I understand his arguments correctly...
I maintain my position that for the purposes of feats and abilities "handedness" is determined by the way the weapon is wielded at the time, and weapon designations on the equipment table are intended for determining size category related issues but it wouldn't hurt to get a little dev input one way or another *nudge, nudge, wink, wink*
I just want to say I continue to marvel at the ability of people to take the same ten or twelve words...place emphasis on the one of their choosing and steadfastly defend their conclusion. The English language is an amazing thing...the term lawyer in rules lawyer is ever so apt.
A bastard sword is two-handed weapon for you if you only have martial weapon proficiency. It can be weilded in one hand and counts as such if you posses the right feat, much like the dwarven waraxe. It is one of the few weapons that crosses categories since the classification of whether something is one-handed or two-handed is dependent upon the effort it takes to wield it for the most part.
Does this mean that a character can take the EWP and still use it for feats that need a two handed weapon? Or does it mean that taking the feat excludes you from using it for two handed weapon feats?
I think a correct approach should also be a consistent approach, which is why I bring up the case of the bastard sword.
|
|
The issue lies not in the proving, but in the disproving. Apparently.
It actually is an issue that could use some clarification though, as this is one of those areas where you don't have one person wildly clinging to his interpretation of a given rule despite all evidence to the contrary, but rather an area where the rules are fairly gray, in an area that can directly impact certain builds. It also seems to be one of those things that hasn't seen any dev commentary, whether because they think it should be self-evident, or because they themselves are hesitant to weigh in. Or because it's entirely beneath their notice. Which is entirely possible.
A bastard sword is two-handed weapon for you if you only have martial weapon proficiency. It can be weilded in one hand and counts as such if you posses the right feat, much like the dwarven waraxe. It is one of the few weapons that crosses categories since the classification of whether something is one-handed or two-handed is dependent upon the effort it takes to wield it for the most part.Does this mean that a character can take the EWP and still use it for feats that need a two handed weapon? Or does it mean that taking the feat excludes you from using it for two handed weapon feats?
I think a correct approach should also be a consistent approach, which is why I bring up the case of the bastard sword.
The bastard sword is a corner case, and should not be applied to other weapons. I don't think taking a feat to make the sword easier to use was ever intended to make it less useful.
Does this mean that a character can take the EWP and still use it for feats that need a two handed weapon?
No. The bastard sword is a one-handed weapon. It never becomes a two-handed weapon. You can use it "two-handed as a martial weapon" which is not the same as "as a two-handed martial weapon."
The only special clause for the bastard sword is that you simply cannot use it one-handed without proficiency. (See JJ's ruling here) It's not really a quantum weapon, changing size and HP based on the user, it's just a regular one-handed weapon that cannot be wielded normally without the feat.
Changing weapon designation based on how many hands you use doesn't make sense. This would mean you could two-hand a dagger to get extra power attack damage.
Changing weapon designation based on the strength multiplier doesn't make sense. This would mean that a medium creature wielding a large rapier wouldn't get extra power attack damage, despite it being wielded as a two-handed weapon. (The rapier never grants 1.5x Str)
The only thing that makes sense is when the weapon is specifically wielded that way.
A gnome with a medium longsword is using it as a two-handed weapon. For that gnome, it is a two-handed weapon, with all the limitations that implies. It requires him to use two hands to wield.
A Phalanx Fighter with a polearm is using it as a one-handed weapon. For that fighter, it is a one-handed weapon, with all the limitations that implies. He doesn't get extra power attack unless he uses both hands.
An elf with a medium longsword is using it as a one-handed weapon. One-handed weapons specifically have the option to use both hands, this does not change the weapon designation. That elf may, at any time, use the weapon with one hand, because it is not a two-handed weapon.
Whats with the SoS hate? Seems an OK feat to me...!?
|
On another forum I'm in the middle of a discussion with a few people about the RAI and RAW of using a longsword as a two-handed weapon ...
Are these people that you're playing in a game with? If not, I'd just agree to disagree and move along, for your own sanity. You don't want to be this guy.
This is probably not going to be helpful, but why not use a Greatsword and just call it a Longsword?The real question is what is the point of all of this. The OP and several posters are probabably trying to argue for a corner interpretation of rules and feats, but just what that corner or the intent, is is not clear.
For background and to answer your question:
I was discussing this with a couple of others on another forum which doesn't have as many Pathfinder rules competent people on it so I brought the question here to the rules section to be discussed.
The original question posed to us from another poster was:
"So the question has arisen in a game, and got mean just last night. I'm playing a ranger using the combat style from Advanced the two-handed weapon style.
We found a magic sword and my 13 intelligence ranger picked it up. The sword is intelligent and will not leave me, I cannot wield any other weapon so long as it is on me, or it disarms me. (yay for angry weapons!)It's a longsword.
I'm using the longsword two-handed, or as I would say, as a two-handed weapon.
Does using the longsword in a two-hands count as a two-handed weapon for the purposes of feats? (Shield of Swings for instance)
Halp?????"
So as you can see, the question deals with someone wanting to use a longsword in two hands (as a two-handed weapon) because he has a normal 2-handed weapon build and can't use his normal 2-handed weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The original question posed to us from another poster was:
"So the question has arisen in a game, and got mean just last night. I'm playing a ranger using the combat style from Advanced the two-handed weapon style.We found a magic sword and my 13 intelligence ranger picked it up. The sword is intelligent and will not leave me, I cannot wield any other weapon so long as it is on me, or it disarms me. (yay for angry weapons!)It's a longsword.
I'm using the longsword two-handed, or as I would say, as a two-handed weapon.
Does using the longsword in a two-hands count as a two-handed weapon for the purposes of feats? (Shield of Swings for instance)
By the rules, no. But given the amount of weird stuff the GM is doing, it would probably be a decent thing to allow in that case. (Unless crippling the ranger is an important plot point or making the game more fun for everyone)
@Grick - I completely agree, it'd be a d!ck move by the GM if he won't allow this guy to use the magical intelligent longsword to be used in this capacity since he put it into his game. The GM knows that the PC has a 2-handed weapon build and so should house-rule that he can do what he needs to so that he can be an effective party member. At least that's the way I see it and how I'd rule on it if I was the GM.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ok, stupid connection ate my post.
Light weapons can be wielded two handed, but gain no benefit. So would people rule those feats work with a dagger or a short sword?
Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder’s primary hand only.
Some light weapons *glares at wakazashi* even have hilts that accomodate two hands easily. As do some rapiers*. So does the feat work with those?
*
Well this wasn't a comparison from a light weapon like a dagger with a weapon that requires two hands to wield. This was the comparison between the longsword and the next size up meaning the 2-handed sword. Bringing light weapons into the convo just opens up another can of worms!
Logically, if a one-handed weapon isn't considered a two-handed weapon when wielded in two hands for the purposes of feats, abilities, and attack/damage modifiers; than a dagger isn't considered a ranged weapon when thrown for the purposes of feats, abilities, and attack/damage modifiers.
Logically, if a one-handed weapon isn't considered a two-handed weapon when wielded in two hands for the purposes of feats, abilities, and attack/damage modifiers; than a dagger isn't considered a ranged weapon when thrown for the purposes of feats, abilities, and attack/damage modifiers.
Well, yeah.
You can throw a Flail at someone, but that doesn't make it a ranged weapon.
Melee and Ranged Weapons: "Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks, though some of them can be thrown as well. Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee."
Melee weapon: Longsword
Melee weapon, thrown weapon: Dagger
Ranged weapon, thrown weapon: Dart
Ranged weapon: Longbow
The first two are effective in melee, the last two aren't.
You can use Deflect Arrows on an arrow, bolt, or dart, but not a thrown dagger. (specifies "ranged weapon")
You can use Deadly Aim with bows, darts, or daggers, because it specifies "ranged attack rolls" not "ranged weapons."
You can't use Point-Blank Shot with a thrown dagger, since it specifies "ranged weapons" (Sorry rogues!).
You can use Deflect Arrows on an arrow, bolt, or dart, but not a thrown dagger. (specifies "ranged weapon")
You can use Deadly Aim with bows, darts, or daggers, because it specifies "ranged attack rolls" not "ranged weapons."
You can't use Point-Blank Shot with a thrown dagger, since it specifies "ranged weapons" (Sorry rogues!).
Wow. We disagree fundamentally it seems. I've never seen the game designers support your interpretation (though it does seem RAW accurate).
"Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks, though some of them can be thrown as well. Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee."
There are two different ways to read this. I think you're reading this as being interchangeable with "Ranged weapons are thrown weapons that are not effective in melee or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee."
I read "that are not effective in melee" as applying to the projectile weapons only. If "and" was used instead of "or", I would apply it to both.
My take is that you cannot make a definitive answer based on the RAW.
As with most things in the English language, it can be taken either way.
I see to reasonable RAIs:
1) The designer intended that two hands be used for more power, allowing the effect of the feat.
2) The designer intended that larger, heavier weapons were required to allow the effect of the feat.
Choose which one works for your game, neither is going to break it.
As to those that state their answer is right based on logic:
1) All widgets are blue does not mean everything blue is a widget.
2) If I said "I hate you more than anyone one the planet" it could mean two completly different things:
A) I hate you more than anyone else hates you.
B) I hate you more than anyone else I hate.
RAW is VERY hard to get RAI without extra input. After a couple of people give you thier opinion, you just have to pick one.
Also: The first feat in question requires that you gain the benefit of Power Attack. You can't do that with a light weapon, even with two hands so that part is mute.
The first feat in question requires that you gain the benefit of Power Attack. You can't do that with a light weapon
Power Attack works fine with light weapons (as long as you're not making a touch attack or something).
|
I just want to say I continue to marvel at the ability of people to take the same ten or twelve words...place emphasis on the one of their choosing and steadfastly defend their conclusion. The English language is an amazing thing...the term lawyer in rules lawyer is ever so apt.
This is one of the main reasons why people complain about 3rd edition being broken.
Whoops, you're right. You just don't get the extra part under Power Attack, but you still get its base.
This is probably not going to be helpful, but why not use a Greatsword and just call it a Longsword?The real question is what is the point of all of this. The OP and several posters are probabably trying to argue for a corner interpretation of rules and feats, but just what that corner or the intent, is is not clear.For background and to answer your question:
I was discussing this with a couple of others on another forum which doesn't have as many Pathfinder rules competent people on it so I brought the question here to the rules section to be discussed.
The original question posed to us from another poster was:
"So the question has arisen in a game, and got mean just last night. I'm playing a ranger using the combat style from Advanced the two-handed weapon style.We found a magic sword and my 13 intelligence ranger picked it up. The sword is intelligent and will not leave me, I cannot wield any other weapon so long as it is on me, or it disarms me. (yay for angry weapons!)It's a longsword.
I'm using the longsword two-handed, or as I would say, as a two-handed weapon.
Does using the longsword in a two-hands count as a two-handed weapon for the purposes of feats? (Shield of Swings for instance)
Halp?????"
So as you can see, the question deals with someone wanting to use a longsword in two hands (as a two-handed weapon) because he has a normal 2-handed weapon build and can't use his normal 2-handed weapon.
By the rules....you've essentially been royally screwed over.
Now...however since this is a home game there are options for you. Depending on your aims long term. Are you going to keep this sword or get rid of it as soon as you can?
IF the answer is the former, explore the concept of retraining your feats... or possibly altering the sword itself so that it becomes a bastard sword or two handed sword through magic.
Rules are basically meant to describe standard situations and...
Wasn't me, nor in my game. I was posting the question here to get the expert opinions of Pathfinder players/GM's in the rules section because the other forum doesn't have as many people who play/GM Pathfinder there, nor do the Developers grace the forum with their presence to discuss things like this.
I agree that if the GM of the game in question doesn't allow the player to work around the usage of an item s/he introduced in their game then that's a crappy thing to do to the players.
It just was the player trying to get a workaround using the RAW or RAI that had him post the question in the first place.
Bastard Swords have a dual idenitity as both exotic one handed and martial two handed.
An appropriately sized bastard sword is always one-handed. A medium one is a small object, regardless of who is using it. You can use it two-handed as a martial weapon, just like you can use a longsword two-handed as a martial weapon.
"two-handed as a martial weapon" and "as a two-handed martial weapon" are not the same thing.
Bastard Swords have a dual idenitity as both exotic one handed and martial two handed.An appropriately sized bastard sword is always one-handed. A medium one is a small object, regardless of who is using it. You can use it two-handed as a martial weapon, just like you can use a longsword two-handed as a martial weapon.
"two-handed as a martial weapon" and "as a two-handed martial weapon" are not the same thing.
An appropriately sized bastard sword is too large to use one-handed, unless you have the appropriate training. That's in the description of the weapon itself. If something is too large to use one-handed, I don't see how it can always be one-handed.
An appropriately sized bastard sword is too large to use one-handed, unless you have the appropriate training. That's in the description of the weapon itself. If something is too large to use one-handed, I don't see how it can always be one-handed.
The appropriate training refers to exotic weapon proficiency.
Without EWP, you can't wield it in one hand. (See JJ's ruling here)
A proficient user can use it normally.
A non-proficient user can only use it two-handed as a martial weapon. He can't wield it in one hand, not even if he is willing to take the -4 non-proficiency penalty.
I still think that doesn't make much sense, and it would be a lot better if it were a two-handed weapon that someone with EWP can wield one-handed. That prevents the weirdness of being unable to wield it non-proficiently (like every other weapon in the game) and makes a lot more sense with it acting like a huge honking sword. It would ruin the oversized bastard sword thing, though.
If it changes to a two-handed weapon based on the wielder, then it's changing object size and HP and everything else.