I did a search for this, and didn't see a thread that clearly addressed this specific issue. Though I did see the issue brought up peripherally in some other threads.
Pertinent information:
Overhand Chop is a third level extraordinary ability granted by the Two-Handed Fighter Archetype.
Overhand Chop (Ex)
At 3rd level, when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls.
This ability replaces Armor Training 1.
A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training.
Description: Due to its size, a bastard sword is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
I know that the devs put the rules in the hands of intelligent people, and that they want us to rule in the way that makes the most sense. For that reason, and specifically because of the language that says two-handed as a martial weapon (which I interpret to mean it then is categorized as a "two-handed martial weapon"), I told the player in question I have no problem with their character using a bastard sword in two hands with the overhand chop ability. What I want to know is, am I houseruling that? Or is that the RAI?
The character in question has exotic weapon proficiency for the bastard sword, which means he can wield it in one hand, but I don't think that, in and of itself, removes the ability to still wield the sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
Also, before you ask, the player in question is a younger player who after taking three levels of barbarian, and thinking he wanted to go sword and board with the bastard sword, saw the two-handed fighter archetype and saw the potential for damage increase. He is now trying to decide whether to dip three levels of the Two-Handed Fighter in order to get that (ex) ability. His...
LOL in Conan d20 the bastard sword was indeed an exotic weapon. you can wield it:
Foot: two handed as martial, one handed as exotic
Mounted: Two handed exotic, one handed martial
in the game the bastard sword can be wielded with the exotic weapon feat, as a one handed weapon, but you still can use it as a two handed weapon.
That´s for the RAW
unless your gm housrule that and tells you, that you must choose either (actualy a silly house rule)
|
Do you understand what a semantics argument is?Do you? A semantics argument comes into play when the semantics are ambiguous or otherwise unclear. For example:
Power Attack: You get 1.5x the power attack bonus when using a two-handed weapon, one-handed weapon in two hands, or a natural attack that deals 1.5x str damage.
Semantically, this can be read in two ways:
A) You get 1.5x the power attack bonus when using a (two-handed weapon, one-handed weapon in two hands, or a natural attack) that deals 1.5x str damage.
B) You get 1.5x the power attack bonus when using a two-handed weapon, one-handed weapon in two hands, or a (natural attack that deals 1.5x str damage).
In reading A, it's parsed such that only weapons that end up dealing 1.5x Str damage benefit from 1.5x power attack bonus. When using Flurry of Blows, you deal 1x str damage even with a 2-h weapon and, by reading A of Power Attack, you'd get normal Power Attack bonus damage when flurrying with a 2-h weapon. Reading B, on the other hand, associates the 1.5x str damage with natural attacks specifically and it has no bearing on the other two options. In that case, a Flurry with a 2-h weapon will get 1x Str damage but 1.5x Power Attack damage. That is a matter of semantics. Moreover, it's a completely pertinent and important matter of semantics.
There's no ambiguous semantics in the case of handedness of a Bastard Sword. It's listed as a 1-h Exotic weapon on the weapons table and it is explicitly stated to be an exotic weapon in its description. Text trumps table, but in this case, text backs up table. Moreover, it goes on to say that an untrained person can wield it in two hands and treat it as a martial weapon. Not a 2-h martial weapons, but wield the 1-h exotic weapon in two hands and treat is at just a martial weapon. That's a third strike against the idea that it's a 2-h weapon by default because if that were the case, it would state that you can take EWP(Bastard...
Stunning.
You tell me it's not ambiguous, and list interpretations.
|
|
I know, a lot of people are hung up on RAW. I'd prefer RAI.You may be interested in the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew section of the forums.
Not in this particular case. It's about the rules of the game...that can mean rules as written...and it can mean that the intention of the rules is one thing, but they seem to indicate another...so there's a problem with the way they're written.
I'm not all wrapped up in this...but I believe that the bastard sword was a weapon the writer intended to be usable with the overhand chop.
Unless one of the devs gives an answer, it'll end up some of us thinking one way, and the rest thinking another...it won't change my game, or yours, I'd bet.
With all due respect...and I do respect everyone on this thread - I believe differently than you do...about this particular rule.
Yes, but the Jotungrip ability clearly shows that sometimes, within the scope of the rules, a weapon is something, but acts as something else. Why couldn't the same be true in the case of a sword that is specifically described as being "too large to use in one hand without special training?"
Jotungrip allows you to treat it as something else.
The two-handed fighter archtype goes by what the weapon is by a strict reading of RAW.
Personally I would allow the bastard sword to work since it does not break anything, abd it takes a feat to use it in one hand, but what I would allow is not what matters.
|
|
Give me an example of a 2-h sword that's lighter than a Bastard Sword.I know, a lot of people are hung up on RAW. I'd prefer RAI. It's really that simple. A 6 pound sword is a huge sword. *shrug*.
It's actually heavier than most definite 2-handed swords.
Long-time student of arms and senior fight interpreter at the British Royal Armouries, Keith Ducklin, states: "From my experience at the Royal Armouries, where I have handled many genuine weapons from different periods, I would personally suggest that a broad-bladed European fighting sword, be it a cutter, cut-and-thruster or thruster, is likely to weigh between two pounds for a single-handed sword and four-and-a-half for a two-handed. Swords specifically produced for other uses, e.g. ceremony or execution, may weigh less or more, but these are not fighting weapons." (personal correspondence with the author, April 2004). Mr. Ducklin would certainly know, as he has held and examined literally hundreds of fine swords in this famous collection and considered them from the point of view of a fighter.
In a brief article on swords specimens of the 15th to 16th centuries from three major museum collections, including samples from the Stibbet Museum in Florence, Dr. Timothy Dawson noted no single-hand sword weighed more than 3.5 pounds and no greatsword weighed more than 6 pounds. He concludes, “From these examples it can be seen that the ideal that medieval and Renaissance swords were heavy, clumsy objects is far from true.” (Dawson, p. 34 & 35).
3 major museums, no greatsword was over 6 lbs. That's pretty significant.
I believe that the bastard sword was a weapon the writer intended to be usable with the overhand chop.
Are you saying that Jason Nelson wanted to write the archetype to work with the bastard sword, but just inexplicably didn't? Or that he didn't know the bastard sword is a one-handed weapon? What makes you sure he was thinking of the bastard sword at all?
Unless one of the devs gives an answer, it'll end up some of us thinking one way, and the rest thinking another...
About RAW or RAI?
RAW has been pretty well established, I think.
As for RAI, generally the assumption is that the rules were intended to mean what they say. In order for that not to be the case, there should be some evidence that the intent doesn't match the rule.
So what evidence is there that the bastard sword was supposed to be used as a two-handed weapon, rather than used two-handed like it says?
Anyway, there's a FAQ post here if you want to find out.
it won't change my game, or yours, I'd bet.
If my players wanted to house rule the bastard sword as a two-handed weapon, I'd probably allow it.
|
|
I believe that the bastard sword was a weapon the writer intended to be usable with the overhand chop.Are you saying that Jason Nelson wanted to write the archetype to work with the bastard sword, but just inexplicably didn't? Or that he didn't know the bastard sword is a one-handed weapon? What makes you sure he was thinking of the bastard sword at all?
Unless one of the devs gives an answer, it'll end up some of us thinking one way, and the rest thinking another...About RAW or RAI?
RAW has been pretty well established, I think.
As for RAI, generally the assumption is that the rules were intended to mean what they say. In order for that not to be the case, there should be some evidence that the intent doesn't match the rule.
So what evidence is there that the bastard sword was supposed to be used as a two-handed weapon, rather than used two-handed like it says?
Anyway, there's a FAQ post here if you want to find out.
it won't change my game, or yours, I'd bet.If my players wanted to house rule the bastard sword as a two-handed weapon, I'd probably allow it.
No, I don't know that it was thought about. I do really find it interesting that those arguing against my point say they'd allow it...as if they assume that it's within the scope of RAI. I did go ahead and click the FAQ...thanks.
I would make note that the bastard sword is different enough that it gets that wording apart from where it's given for one-handed weapons in general. That's some definite evidence, right there, I'd say.
I do really find it interesting that those arguing against my point say they'd allow it...as if they assume that it's within the scope of RAI.
The reason I would allow it is not that I think it's RAI, it's that my players would have more fun with it that way. The same reason I use the 3.5 reach exception (Always 2nd diagonal!), it's not the RAW (No 2nd diagonal!), it's also not the RAI (Sometimes 2nd diagonal!), but everyone at my table, including the GM, has more fun using it.
No, I don't know that it was thought about. I do really find it interesting that those arguing against my point say they'd allow it...as if they assume that it's within the scope of RAI. I did go ahead and click the FAQ...thanks.
I would make note that the bastard sword is different enough that it gets that wording apart from where it's given for one-handed weapons in general. That's some definite evidence, right there, I'd say.
I don't think it is within RAI. I would just allow it because it takes a feat to be able to use it one-handed.
edit:plus what Grick said.
|
|
I do really find it interesting that those arguing against my point say they'd allow it...as if they assume that it's within the scope of RAI.The reason I would allow it is not that I think it's RAI, it's that my players would have more fun with it that way. The same reason I use the 3.5 reach exception (Always 2nd diagonal!), it's not the RAW (No 2nd diagonal!), it's also not the RAI (Sometimes 2nd diagonal!), but everyone at my table, including the GM, has more fun using it.
You've ruled that logically, the diagonal works...and I agree. I doubt the game designers were against logic...and also, like you, I believe they'd do the same with the bastard sword and overhand chop...because the game is not about RAW...it's about making a workable...reasonably logical (magic? logic? Yeah...sort of...) gaming world that provides maximal fun, rather than nit-picking. That's sort of why I assume it works by RAI.
YMMV.
|
|
No, I don't know that it was thought about. I do really find it interesting that those arguing against my point say they'd allow it...as if they assume that it's within the scope of RAI. I did go ahead and click the FAQ...thanks.
I would make note that the bastard sword is different enough that it gets that wording apart from where it's given for one-handed weapons in general. That's some definite evidence, right there, I'd say.
I don't think it is within RAI. I would just allow it because it takes a feat to be able to use it one-handed.
edit:plus what Grick said.
That was rather what I was saying...but I give the designers credit enough that they get it, too.
Long-time student of arms and senior fight interpreter at the British Royal Armouries, Keith Ducklin, states: "From my experience at the Royal Armouries, where I have handled many genuine weapons from different periods, I would personally suggest that a broad-bladed European fighting sword, be it a cutter, cut-and-thruster or thruster, is likely to weigh between two pounds for a single-handed sword and four-and-a-half for a two-handed. Swords specifically produced for other uses, e.g. ceremony or execution, may weigh less or more, but these are not fighting weapons." (personal correspondence with the author, April 2004). Mr. Ducklin would certainly know, as he has held and examined literally hundreds of fine swords in this famous collection and considered them from the point of view of a fighter.
In a brief article on swords specimens of the 15th to 16th centuries from three major museum collections, including samples from the Stibbet Museum in Florence, Dr. Timothy Dawson noted no single-hand sword weighed more than 3.5 pounds and no greatsword weighed more than 6 pounds. He concludes, “From these examples it can be seen that the ideal that medieval and Renaissance swords were heavy, clumsy objects is far from true.” (Dawson, p. 34 & 35).
3 major museums, no greatsword was over 6 lbs. That's pretty significant.
This... isn't evidence to support your point. If we take this real world experience and apply it to pathfinder mechanics it means nothing.
In pathfinder *EVERY* two handed martial weapon except one has a weight of 8 lbs or more. That one is NOT the two handed greatsword. By real world experience all the variants of two handed swords in pathfinder are ceremonial. In fact even the Exotic Bastard Sword (at 6 lbs in pathfinder) by real world standards is at best ONLY a two handed greatsword (and could not ever be wielded in one hand) or is more likely ceremonial.
This isn't a case of a single weapon being out of line with real world usage/weight. This is EVERY two handed martial weapon being out of line with reality.
Using (most likely rather arbitrary, though possibly done with some kind of balance against encumbrance loads in mind) weight values given in pathfinder and comparing them to real world items does not prove the point.
Not sure if this has been covered, I scanned and didn't see it, but on the matter of an oversized bastard sword being a two-handed weapon...
Weapon Size: Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed...
...The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. 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.
So, RAW, a bastard sword sized for a Large creature is still an exotic one-handed weapon and treated differently based on your proficiency, much like the martial proficiency allowing it to be used "as a two-handed weapon". If you are going to take RAW, you have to take it all.
Personally, I would say that RAI, a bastard sword could make benefit of the skill, but RAW definitely states it would have to be a two-handed weapon.
Additionally, the skill description does not actually define it must be a two-handed melee weapon, only a two-handed weapon. Granted, since all of the ranged weapons that must be wielded in two hands are listed as "ranged weapons" some interpretation would be needed in that case as well.
In addition to that, all double weapons are classified as two-handed weapons and would be able to make use of the skill RAW, including the lowly quarterstaff that nearly every class can use.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
Long-time student of arms and senior fight interpreter at the British Royal Armouries, Keith Ducklin, states: "From my experience at the Royal Armouries, where I have handled many genuine weapons from different periods, I would personally suggest that a broad-bladed European fighting sword, be it a cutter, cut-and-thruster or thruster, is likely to weigh between two pounds for a single-handed sword and four-and-a-half for a two-handed. Swords specifically produced for other uses, e.g. ceremony or execution, may weigh less or more, but these are not fighting weapons." (personal correspondence with the author, April 2004). Mr. Ducklin would certainly know, as he has held and examined literally hundreds of fine swords in this famous collection and considered them from the point of view of a fighter.
In a brief article on swords specimens of the 15th to 16th centuries from three major museum collections, including samples from the Stibbet Museum in Florence, Dr. Timothy Dawson noted no single-hand sword weighed more than 3.5 pounds and no greatsword weighed more than 6 pounds. He concludes, “From these examples it can be seen that the ideal that medieval and Renaissance swords were heavy, clumsy objects is far from true.” (Dawson, p. 34 & 35).
3 major museums, no greatsword was over 6 lbs. That's pretty significant.
This... isn't evidence to support your point. If we take this real world experience and apply it to pathfinder mechanics it means nothing.
In pathfinder *EVERY* two handed martial weapon except one has a weight of 8 lbs or more. That one is NOT the two handed greatsword. By real world experience all the variants of two handed swords in pathfinder are ceremonial. In fact even the Exotic Bastard Sword (at 6 lbs in pathfinder) by real world standards is at best ONLY a two handed greatsword (and could not ever be wielded in one hand) or is more likely ceremonial.
This isn't a case of a...
I was asked. *shrug*.
Not sure if this has been covered, I scanned and didn't see it, but on the matter of an oversized bastard sword being a two-handed weapon...
Weapon Size: Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed...
...The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. 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.
So, RAW, a bastard sword sized for a Large creature is still an exotic one-handed weapon and treated differently based on your proficiency, much like the martial proficiency allowing it to be used "as a two-handed weapon". If you are going to take RAW, you have to take it all.
edit:You did not cut your quote off. You just did not cite the previous paragraph which would shed more light on the issue.
Personally, I would say that RAI, a bastard sword could make benefit of the skill, but RAW definitely states it would have to be a two-handed weapon.Additionally, the skill description does not actually define it must be a two-handed melee weapon, only a two-handed weapon. Granted, since all of the ranged weapons that must be wielded in two hands are listed as "ranged weapons" some interpretation would be needed in that case as well.
In addition to that, all double weapons are classified as two-handed weapons and would be able to make use of the skill RAW, including the lowly quarterstaff that nearly every class can use.
Just my 2 cents.
The difference here are the words "is" and "as", and the class ability by RAW ask for the sword's actual classification, not how it can be used.
A longsword is still a one handed weapon, but its use might be changed for a creature of a different size.
You also cut off the beginning of your quote, which I bolded which starts with:
Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon....
That shows the intent of handiness is to apply it to melee weapons.
Not sure if this has been covered...The difference here are the words "is"...
Not sure if you are supporting my point or arguing it...
EDIT: "is considered a" is not the same as "is a", so being considered to be classified as a two-handed still doesn't make it one.
I was asked. *shrug*.
Give me an example of a 2-h sword that's lighter than a Bastard Sword.
That is what your were asked.
The reading of that question was (should have been understood as) within the context of the game.
(Though I do appreciate the link to the article, as it is interesting in its own right).
Not sure if this has been covered...The difference here are the words "is"...Not sure if you are supporting my point or arguing it...
EDIT: "is considered a" is not the same as "is a", so being considered to be classified as a two-handed still doesn't make it one.
In that case we agree. :)
There is also this.
Cleric: Does a cleric, whose deity's favored weapon is the bastard sword, receive free martial or exotic weapon proficiency with the sword?
Since the bastard sword is listed as an exotic weapon, he receives the Exotic Weapon proficiency with the weapon, allowing him to use it one-handed.
The effort it *normally* takes to wield it is 2-hands. It takes a feat to wield it with one.You know what happens when you stick to the classifications of weapon handedness regardless of what number of hands you are actually using? You get screwy situations such as:
Two handed weapons being used in one hand still getting two-handed bonuses.
One handed weapons being used in two hands but still being considered as one handed for certain bonuses.It's silly. While not exactly RAW I believe the RAI is clear that weapons have a starting category. That category affects the HPs of the weapon and what effort it *normally* takes to use the weapon.
However, if you have some means to change the effort (one->two handed or two->one handed) then use the rules applicable to the handedness you are currently using.
I'm amazed this is even a debate.
- Gauss
I am curious where I mentioned anywhere in my post a bastard sword?
For the record: a bastard sword is not the only example of a two-handed weapon being used one handed. Lance, inappropriately sized weapons being used one handed, and jotungrip are just 3 more examples.
Any one-handed weapon (but not light weapon) may be used as a two-handed weapon. Inappropriately sized weapons can also turn a one-handed weapon into a two-handed weapon when being used.
My point is that it is my belief that when they write up abilities that require a 'one-handed weapon' or a 'two-handed weapon' it is the usage, not the category that they are really referencing.
- Gauss
|
|
I was asked. *shrug*.Give me an example of a 2-h sword that's lighter than a Bastard Sword.
That is what your were asked.
The reading of that question was (should have been understood as) within the context of the game.
(Though I do appreciate the link to the article, as it is interesting in its own right).
Why should I understand the context as within the game when the post that brought the question up was about reality, and we know the weight of a 2-h sword in the game is 8 lbs? I apologize for assuming it was a real question.
You're still welcome to the link, though. It is a good article. I discovered many years ago that games had a tendency to make things a little crazy, compared to real life.
|
|
The effort it *normally* takes to wield it is 2-hands. It takes a feat to wield it with one.You know what happens when you stick to the classifications of weapon handedness regardless of what number of hands you are actually using? You get screwy situations such as:
Two handed weapons being used in one hand still getting two-handed bonuses.
One handed weapons being used in two hands but still being considered as one handed for certain bonuses.It's silly. While not exactly RAW I believe the RAI is clear that weapons have a starting category. That category affects the HPs of the weapon and what effort it *normally* takes to use the weapon.
However, if you have some means to change the effort (one->two handed or two->one handed) then use the rules applicable to the handedness you are currently using.
I'm amazed this is even a debate.
- Gauss
I am curious where I mentioned anywhere in my post a bastard sword?
For the record: a bastard sword is not the only example of a two-handed weapon being used one handed. Lance, inappropriately sized weapons being used one handed, and jotungrip are just 3 more examples.
Any one-handed weapon (but not light weapon) may be used as a two-handed weapon. Inappropriately sized weapons can also turn a one-handed weapon into a two-handed weapon when being used.
My point is that it is my belief that when they write up abilities that require a 'one-handed weapon' or a 'two-handed weapon' it is the usage, not the category that they are really referencing.
- Gauss
You didn't specify, but the thread did. I apologize if that seemed to take liberties...but I was expanding on something you mentioned. That's how a discussion flows.
EldonG,
My view of the premise of this thread is that everyone is debating if a Bastard Sword is a 1 or 2 handed weapon with the goal of can it be used with abilities that require using two hands.
However, I believe that this really skips over the entire aspect that a one handed weapon used two handed is basically a two handed weapon when it comes to abilities etc. Thus making the 1 or 2 handed Bastard Sword debate a moot point (except for the weapon's hitpoints).
- Gauss
EldonG,
My view of the premise of this thread is that everyone is debating if a Bastard Sword is a 1 or 2 handed weapon with the goal of can it be used with abilities that require using two hands.
However, I believe that this really skips over the entire aspect that a one handed weapon used two handed is basically a two handed weapon when it comes to abilities etc. Thus making the 1 or 2 handed Bastard Sword debate a moot point (except for the weapon's hitpoints).
- Gauss
Gotta say I agree here.
A Dagger is a light melee weapon, but when you throw it its a ranged weapon, all feats that specifically only work with ranged weapons work with a thrown dagger.That same is true for a twohanded sword used as an improvised throwing weapon.|
|
EldonG,
My view of the premise of this thread is that everyone is debating if a Bastard Sword is a 1 or 2 handed weapon with the goal of can it be used with abilities that require using two hands.
However, I believe that this really skips over the entire aspect that a one handed weapon used two handed is basically a two handed weapon when it comes to abilities etc. Thus making the 1 or 2 handed Bastard Sword debate a moot point (except for the weapon's hitpoints).
- Gauss
It's a viable point, I suppose. I'd probably run with it if someone wanted to do that...say, if the main weapon was broken or something. It's hardly unbalanced. That, I'm pretty sure, is into houserule territory, though.
It really isnt a houserule. It is a logical progression from the rules stating that a one-handed weapon used two-handed gains certain bonuses as if it were a two-handed weapon.
It is also a specific vs general issue where you have specific uses of a normal weapon where those uses fall into a different category.
People are arguing the semantics of what makes a 1 or 2 handed weapon when it is really as simple as:
How many hands do you have on the weapon?
and:
Can you use that weapon with that many hands?
There is evidence (that people have quoted) indicating that a one handed weapon used two-handed is treated as a two-handed weapon. There is also evidence (that people have quoted) indicating that a two-handed weapon is treated as a one handed weapon if used in one hand.
Sure, the rules are a bit muddy. Sure the weapon has a baseline category it falls under. But, in several places in the rules that category is clearly modified by the number of hands actually used on the weapon and the size of the user relative to the size of the weapon.
- Gauss
if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands,
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.
Weapon usage does not dictate weapon designation by RAW. You just get the benefits of a two-handed weapon.
The question is did Paizo intended to write "when wielding a melee weapon in two hands" or did they actually mean to limit it to two-handed weapons.
Stepping out of rules lawyer mode:
Unless its PFS, it should not matter because it is not game breaking. I don't think most home GM's are that picky about it.
@the OP:He could pick up a greatsword or another weapon that is more damaging. Let him have the weapon. :)
Ok, then by your own strict reading a Lance gains two-handed strength and power attack damage even when used in one hand.
In any case, I am basing my logic on the following section.
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. 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.
As you can see, this is at least one section of the rules that DOES define a weapons handedness by the relative size and effort it takes to wield said weapon.
Strength damage and power attack damage follow that concept. Jotungrip follows it. Only in a few cases do they not make such a statement and I believe it is because they were simply saving space and/or thinking that how many hands you are using is the real definition of what defines a weapon handedness.
- Gauss
I agree that the weapon designation changes when compared to the size of the wielder, but assuming the creature size does not vary, the primary weapon destination is also its category.
Effort needed to wield and what you can use a weapon as not the same.
A one handed weapon still only needs one hand, you just have the option of using two hands. This does not make it a two handed weapon, even if you get two-handed benefits.
In the end I don't think it matters once we step away from the rules forum unless we are in PFS. In that case I don't know how I would rule it.
GtG...
|
|
And here is a 2 handed sword duel from the Royal Armouries - note the 1 handed 'kill' at the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhUStWq-_Is
Those are what the game calls bastard swords...I'm fairly certain. They're big. In the real world, they're often referred to as 2-handed swords...a claymore is.
The game differs from reality...whether that's good or bad, *shrug*, I leave for anyone's judgement.