|
HangarFlying, the new FAQ answer specifically states "wielding it in one hand". Although the new FAQ question comes close the new FAQ answer does not state anywhere "use a two-handed weapon in one hand".
If it is not addressing the lance FAQ then the wording regarding wielding should not have been used because the Lance DOES use that wording. It is what makes the two FAQs incompatible. Without that wording the two FAQs would merely be confusing rather than incompatible.
This is not a disparity, it is a direct contradiction.
- Gauss
It is an answer to the question "When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?".
It is not an answer to the question "If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?"
While I understand how the wording can be confusing, if you read it within the context of the question that precipitated it, there is no contradiction. They are not mutually exclusive.
fretgod99, the Lance FAQ specifically holds up the Lance as an example. The Lance specifically states that it is wielded in one hand.
Since the Lance states that it is wielded in one hand, and the new FAQ covers two-handed weapons that are wielded in one hand then the new FAQ covers Lances. Ok, so now we have two FAQs that both cover lances but say opposite things. IE: Direct contradiction.
Note: The new FAQ never uses the phrase 'wielded as a one-handed weapon' anywhere in the FAQ. I am not sure what your point about that is. If your point is that 'wielded as a one-handed weapon' and 'wield with one hand' are not the same thing, that is fine. But how is it relevant?
- Gauss
fretgod99, the Lance FAQ specifically holds up the Lance as an example. The Lance specifically states that it is wielded in one hand.
Since the Lance states that it is wielded in one hand, and the new FAQ covers two-handed weapons that are wielded in one hand then the new FAQ covers Lances. Ok, so now we have two FAQs that both cover lances but say opposite things. IE: Direct contradiction.
Note: The new FAQ never uses the phrase 'wielded as a one-handed weapon' anywhere in the FAQ. I am not sure what your point about that is. If your point is that 'wielded as a one-handed weapon' and 'wield with one hand' are not the same thing, that is fine. But how is it relevant?
- Gauss
Read the FAQ question, not just the answer.
HangarFlying,
Lets go about this a different way:
Does the new FAQ state that two-handed weapons wielded in one hand do not get the two-handed power attack bonuses?
The answer is Yes.
Does the old (lance) FAQ state that two-handed weapons used in one hand gain the 2 handed power attack bonuses and even goes farther to cite the Lance as an example?
The answer is Yes.
Now...does the LANCE fall into both categories?
The answer is YES. Why? Well, because it is a 'two-handed weapon wielded in one hand' (see the description on lance) AND it is a 'two-handed weapon used in one hand' (it was cited as an example)
Thus, the two FAQs are contradictory. Any result where a weapon falls into two categories that have mutually exclusive answers must mean the categories are contradictory.
- Gauss
Thus, the two FAQs are contradictory. Any result where a weapon falls into two categories that have mutually exclusive answers must mean the categories are contradictory.
- Gauss
Again, only if you read half the FAQ. Then again I'm not forum savvy so maybe you are only supposed to read the answer.
Durngrun, I recognize the FAQ has a question and an answer. While the question can frame the answer the answer can also change the interpretation of the question. It works both ways.
So, fine, lets look at the question and answer together.
The new FAQ question talks about wielding a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon.
Then the new FAQ answer talks about a normally two-handed weapon being wielded in one hand.
So based on this, which one of the following is true?
A) 'as a one-handed' is different than 'wielding in one hand'
B) 'as a one-handed' is the same as 'wielding in one hand'
If the answer is A then the new FAQ is internally contradictory. If the answer is B then the new FAQ contradicts the old (lance) FAQ.
So, which is it?
- Gauss
Durngrun, I recognize the FAQ has a question and an answer. While the question can frame the answer the answer can also change the interpretation of the question. It works both ways.
So, fine, lets look at the question and answer together.
The new FAQ question talks about wielding a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon.
Then the new FAQ answer talks about a normally two-handed weapon being wielded in one hand.So based on this, which one of the following is true?
A) 'as a one-handed' is different than 'wielding in one hand'
B) 'as a one-handed' is the same as 'wielding in one hand'If the answer is A then the new FAQ is internally contradictory. If the answer is B then the new FAQ contradicts the old (lance) FAQ.
So, which is it?
- Gauss
I would say A. And I would read the answer with the question in mind. Again maybe FAQs are supposed to be very legal specific but as a common sense reading I understand it easily.
If "A" then the FAQ is internally inconsistent since the question and answer would talking about two different things.
Anyhow, common sense doesn't much play into this since common sense would have been: "You are using it one hand? One hand bonuses apply! You are using it in two hands? Two hand bonuses apply!" THAT would have been common sense.
- Gauss
If "A" then the FAQ is internally inconsistent since the question and answer would talking about two different things.
Anyhow, common sense doesn't much play into this since common sense would have been: "You are using it one hand? One hand bonuses apply! You are using it in two hands? Two hand bonuses apply!" THAT would have been common sense.
- Gauss
I just read the answer as short hand. They didn't repeat feat or special ability either but I still knew what they were talking about. I think if you read both FAQs it is clear. It seems like nit picking to call it out as inconsistent. That is, of course, unless the language in FAQs are supposed to be legalistic in form. From a casual reading it is understandable.
Durngrun, I am using specifics, could you point out what exactly makes it 'clear'?
I have pointed out what is specifically inconsistent. Others have even agreed with me so I must not be too off base here.
Yes, you may know the intent, but how is someone who does not know all the debates to know that these two FAQs do not contradict each other?
From a cursory NON-legalistic examination they appear to both be defining how to use two-handed weapons one-handed. But, they are contradictory. One says to use one-handed Power Attack. The other says to use two-handed power attack.
So, we look deeper. By looking deeper we do not get any clarity. Why? Because the New FAQ is either internally contradictory OR contradicts the Old FAQ.
So again, how is the person who does not know all the debates and the legalistic wording and intent to know which one is the contradiction? How are they to know that the New FAQ really covers a separate topic?
FAQs are to clarify things, they are not to muddy up the waters even further by appearing to contradict themselves or each other.
- Gauss
Because I'm looking at the question, then the answer. I'm reading the answer as it pertains to the question being asked. In this the question is calls out two-handed as a one-handed weapon. In the lance FAQ, it called out two-handed in one hand (which only applies to the lance as far as I know). Reading the answers from the perspective of the question, leads me to understand the difference. Your confusion seems to come from reading the answers only. That's the only way to not see the difference (aside from simply misreading).
Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?
Yes.—Pathfinder Design Team, 05/24/13
Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?
If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.
That's where I see the difference. It is clear in an informal reading.
I am not confused, at no point did I state I was confused. On the surface, using an informal reading (just reading question and answer of each) the two FAQs are contradictory.
You have to analyze the FAQs to understand they are discussing the differences between 'as a one-handed weapon' and 'in one hand'. Now, if you analyze those differences it becomes clear that the new FAQ contradicts itself OR the old FAQ. One or the other.
I believe you are letting your knowledge in the game apply to your 'informal reading'. You need to look at it from the eyes of someone who does not have System Mastery. Such a person would not see that 'as a one-handed weapon' and 'in one hand' mean different things because that is an extremely legalistic interpretation. They would instead see they both discuss how to use a two-handed weapon in one hand.
Whenever I look at these rulings I try to see the game from some of my player's point of view. They are only barely gamers and rarely understand these pointless differences. I try to understand the ruling and explain it to them. It is hard to do that when the rulings contradict themselves in a non-legalistic AND legalistic way.
Anyhow, I am not the only one that sees the problem and it appears you and I have reached an impasse. I will not debate this further with you. If others care to weigh in that is fine I may discuss it with them.
- Gauss
I will not debate this further with you. If others care to weigh in that is fine I may discuss it with them.- Gauss
Did not mean to offend. I merely think you're reading too much into the "contradiction." And I admitted it might be my ignorance. I'm not sure how many people read the FAQs without some understanding of the game.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
You have to analyze the FAQs to understand they are discussing the differences between 'as a one-handed weapon' and 'in one hand'.
And that's exactly the sort of language problem I mentioned in another post tonight--some text picked up from 3.5, some new text written for PFRPG, and some new text using one or the other as a model and not quite matching either. So which is right? Hard to say. The design team will have to look at the two FAQs on Monday and figure out if one or both need to change or be clarified. Nothing official can be done about it until then.
SKR, thank you for responding.
Ultimately, for my own games, I do not care to analyze the differences between those two phrases. I can do so, and when debating rules I will. But, personally, for me, it is simple. If you use a weapon in one hand it is treated as a one handed weapon for the purposes of damage and feats. If you use it in two hands it is treated as a two-handed weapon for the purposes of damage and feats. It is why the old (Lance) FAQ confused me and many others.
I *hope* the old (Lance) FAQ just goes away. :)
- Gauss
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Durngrun, you did not offend me, I am quite difficult to offend.
In any case, your understanding and my understanding are not the same thing as other people's understanding. It is why a legalistic approach (which is what happens on these rules discussions) is not always an accurate representation of what happens at a lot of gaming tables.
One of the gaming groups Im in has 3 women, none of whom have any sort of system mastery. They would look at the two FAQs and say they are in contradiction on the face of them. Why? because they would see both FAQs as dealing with two-handed weapons being used in one hand.
As SKR was so kind enough to say, it is a language issue.
Funny part? Over the course of 30 or so years of gaming I used to be the one wanting more precise language to make things clearer. I find in my old age I want simpler but CLEAN language. Go figure.
- Gauss
Ultimately, for my own games, I do not care to analyze the differences between those two phrases. I can do so, and when debating rules I will. But, personally, for me, it is simple. If you use a weapon in one hand it is treated as a one handed weapon for the purposes of damage and feats. If you use it in two hands it is treated as a two-handed weapon for the purposes of damage and feats. It is why the old (Lance) FAQ confused me and many others.
That fits my personal philosophy with rules design quite nicely. I find that kind of phrase-parsing far too nitpicky; rules should be very simple and straightforward whenever possible. Frankly, having different rules for wielding a two-handed weapon "as a one-handed weapon" versus "In one hand" sounds like a recipe for confusion at a lot of tables.
fretgod99, the Lance FAQ specifically holds up the Lance as an example. The Lance specifically states that it is wielded in one hand.
Since the Lance states that it is wielded in one hand, and the new FAQ covers two-handed weapons that are wielded in one hand then the new FAQ covers Lances. Ok, so now we have two FAQs that both cover lances but say opposite things. IE: Direct contradiction.
Note: The new FAQ never uses the phrase 'wielded as a one-handed weapon' anywhere in the FAQ. I am not sure what your point about that is. If your point is that 'wielded as a one-handed weapon' and 'wield with one hand' are not the same thing, that is fine. But how is it relevant?
- Gauss
I don't disagree that having a more clear "if you wield it in one hand, get STR, if you wield it in two hands, get 1.5 STR, regardless of anything else" ruling would be much simpler. And I'm not saying you're absolutely wrong in seeing the contradiction (because it's the most apparent reading). I'm just saying they don't necessarily have to be read to be contradictory, if you take them in the contexts of what the two questions specifically asked (which weren't quite the same thing).
But as SKR noted, it does come from different language sources. Hopefully it's something the PDT will clean up, regardless. If not, I can get there from here, but it's not as readily apparent as I'm sure anybody would like (for the reason you've pointed out).
Durngrun, you did not offend me, I am quite difficult to offend.
In any case, your understanding and my understanding are not the same thing as other people's understanding. It is why a legalistic approach (which is what happens on these rules discussions) is not always an accurate representation of what happens at a lot of gaming tables.
One of the gaming groups Im in has 3 women, none of whom have any sort of system mastery. They would look at the two FAQs and say they are in contradiction on the face of them. Why? because they would see both FAQs as dealing with two-handed weapons being used in one hand.
As SKR was so kind enough to say, it is a language issue.
Funny part? Over the course of 30 or so years of gaming I used to be the one wanting more precise language to make things clearer. I find in my old age I want simpler but CLEAN language. Go figure.
- Gauss
You know what, you're right. I was coming at this from my own point of view. I am much more familiar with this game than I am Internet savvy. I honestly did not consider that a brand new player in this day and age would obviously be aware that a company like Paizo would have a messageboard with rules discussions and clarifications. I found this place quite by accident after years of gaming and I guess I just assumed everyone else would have a sizable base of experience to draw from before coming here. I still understand the FAQs clearly but I see how it could cause confusion in new players.