While replying on another thread i checked the PRD (i am away from my books and pdf at the moment) on the double weapons and from what i read it seems that you are able to weild a double weapon in one hand as long as you attack with only one end but i have two problems with that:
1) I remember a lengthy discussion about the issue and one dev finally saying that you can't.
2) The existance of the quarterstaff master feat.
So what happened? Did i miss an errata or something?
Can you please quote the text that makes you think this :)
A Double weapon is a 2handed weapon. In order to use a 2handed weapon in one hand it must be a size smaller than normal for your size but you will take a -2 attack penalty as per normal for inappropriately sized weapons.
Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. 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 (see page 202).
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.
Nothing there about using it 1 handed. Thus, see the rules for inappropriately sized weapons. Edit: oops, there is a line about using it as a one handed weapon. BUT, it would still need to use the inappropriately sized weapons clause or else it couldnt be. There is no exception here for using it as a 1handed weapon if it is normally a 2handed weapon for your size.
Quarterstaff Master is an exception.
- Gauss
EDIT: Gauss said it better than me...
Miss me Quandary? *chuckles* (I'm kidding)
- Gauss
Sorry for not linking it, here
Double weapons entry, second paragraph, second sentence.
Specifically the weilding a double weapon in one hand gives me trouble, it might be another instance of the book's exchange of the words weild and carry weapons which have different meaning in the system.
Ah ok...not at home and phone has issues looking up stuff on the prd for some reason :(
Leo, I missed that line. Doh.
Still, that line provides NO exception for size restrictions and thus the only time you could do that is if you were using an inappropriately sized weapon.
- Gauss
Leo: But notice that it doesn't say you CAN wield a correctly sized double weapon in one hand.
But by the rules it is possible to be wielding a double weapon in one hand if it is sized for a smaller creature. (penalties apply)
The rule is just clarifying that if you do so (with one hand), you can't use both ends as a double weapon.
...But it isn't providing any special MEANS or justification to do so (the differently sized weapons rule is the only means I know of)
The line is pretty misleading by not stating it's context, but on a strict reading of RAW,
it isn't conflicting with or bypassing the other relevant rules for double weapons (two-handed weapons).
Gauss: You know, time flies, life flies...
Quandry, yeah. I ran off and became a Mod on Roll20. Go figure. :)
- Gauss
This line is about dual wielding small double weapons.
There have been people who claimed that they could then attack twice wich each weapon granting them iteratives +3 attacks.
The linked entry is to prevent that.
Ok thank you.
yes but a dbl wpn that is only classed as a 1h wpn, allowing use of one end with just 1 hand wielding is very convenient.
(as the rules make clear, you would still need 2 hands for such weapon to use both ends/2wf, unless it has another rule changing that)
i don't know much more about this weapon that BBT mentioned, where it comes from, or how you pronounce it :-)
but that would be the basic convenience of such a weapon, no more nightmares about grapple monsters :-)
