|
I did a search, but I couldn't find a thread that provided a definitive answer to this. I'm aware that the Ranger class grants Martial Weapons proficiency and that a Dwarf's racial trait allows them to treat an exotic dwarven waraxe as a martial weapon. However, I'm confused by the last 2 sentences of the dwarven waraxe description in the core rulebook:
"A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way. A dwarf treats a dwarven waraxe as a martial weapon even when using it in one hand."
My question are:
How can a dwarf use it one-handed when their size is medium?
Is that last sentence referring to a dwarf that's had their size increased by a spell like Enlarge Person?
Or does a dwarfs' special, racial ability actually allow them to wield it one-handed, despite them being medium sized?
If possible I'd like my Dwarf Ranger to dual wield a dwarven waraxe with a throwing axe in the off hand, but from what's stated in the core rules I'm not sure that's possible or not.
The short version: yep.
The long version: yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.
The serious long version: a dwarven waraxe is a one-handed exotic weapon. Therefore it requires the exotic weapon proficiency to use one-handed. Any character with martial weapon proficiency may use it two-handed and be considered proficient with it. Dwarves have a racial ability that lets them use it one-handed with martial weapon proficiency and be considered proficient with it.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Many thanks for the replies. I was missing the part about the dwarven waraxe being a two-handed marital weapon for a medium character that doesn't have EWP (dwarven waraxe), but a one-handed for those that do.
This is not precisely true, but it is a common misconception.
A medium dwarven waraxe is a one-handed weapon for a medium creature. This means that it can be used in one hand, or used it two hands to gain +50% on your Str bonus to damage.
It is also an exotic weapon, so there is a -4 attack penalty if you lack the EWP.
If you use it two-handed, it doesn't become a 'two-handed weapon', it remains a 'one-handed weapon, used in two hands'.
Due to a special clause in the description, you may treat it as a martial weapon (in terms of avoiding the -4 non-proficiency attack penalty) if you are either:-
* a dwarf
OR
* using it two-handed
So, because your ranger is both a dwarf and has martial weapon proficiency (proficient with all martial weapons), he can use it one-handed, without the -4 non-proficiency penalty.
Interestingly, if your (medium-sized) dwarf were to find a waraxe sized for a large creature, he could use it but he would need two hands to do so, and would incur a -2 attack penalty for it being one size too big, but it would do 2d8 damage instead of the medium 1d10. Not worth it at low levels (where Power Attack is better), but worth it at high levels when you can take the -2 penalty without a problem. This would prevent using an axe in your other hand though, so maybe not worth it for you.
Happy TWFing!
That is incorrect Malachi.
The axe is a two-handed weapon for medium creatures, and one-handed weapon for dwarves or anyone with the exotic weapon proficiency, just like the bastard sword. You can not use it in one hand and take a -4 penalty anymore than you can use any other two-handed weapon in one hand any take the penalty. As I have bolded it is to lard to use in one hand without special training, and you having to be large to use it in one hand supports that.
Waraxe, Dwarven: A dwarven waraxe has a large, ornate head mounted to a thick handle, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way. A dwarf treats a dwarven waraxe as a martial weapon even when using it in one hand.
|
|
Both the bastard sword and the dwarven waraxe (sized for you) are one-handed weapons as objects, and the proficiency or lack thereof of any potential wielder does not change what it is!
The only thing that does is if the weapon is sized for a creature larger or smaller than the wielder, so a waraxe made for a large creature is a two-handed weapon for a (medium) dwarf.
Both weapons are only treated as one-handed if you have the exotic weapon proficiency. Otherwise they are treated as two-handed weapons, which can not be used in one hand. Both state they are two large to be used in one hand. It does not say "very difficult to use in one hand."
PS:I was speaking for medium creatures that were not dwarves to be clear.
I hate to agree with him, but Malachi is right. A bastard sword and a dwarven waraxe are both one-handed weapons. That's how they're listed in the CRB, and that's what you base their item HP off of.
It is a one-handed exotic weapon, but a two-handed martial weapon. You can't use a two-handed weapon in one hand. Text always trumps table, but in this case the text supports the table.
If they call it a two-handed martial weapon there is no weilding it in one hand without the correct feat. That is common knowledge. He is wrong if he is saying you can do that.
FluxMaster wrote:
Amiri's stats give her the inappropriate size penalty for using a large bastard sword, but she should not take this penalty due to her Exotic Weapon Proficiency.The Exotic Weapon Proficiency allows her to wield a bastard sword one-handed instead of two-handed, which means (according to the Weapon Size rules) she can wield a large bastard sword two-handed.
No, the EWP allows her to wield a bastard sword of the correct size one-handed instead of two-handed.
It doesn't change that the sword is Large and she is Medium, and therefore she has a –2 size penalty on her attacks with it, even when using it two-handed.
Whether she is using a longsword, bastard sword, or greatsword two-handed, if it is a Large weapon, she takes a –2 penalty.
So here is how it works.
With EWP the two-handed martial weapon becomes a one handed exotic weapon, that means you can wield a large version two-handed.
Without EWP, the weapon is still two-handed for you meaning you can use it in two-hands, and you could never wield a large one at all.
Then what HP would you assign a Dwarven Waraxe?
You would assign the one-handed hit points, but that does not dictate weapon usage.
The weapon is difficult to use because of its size so it takes special training to use it one-handed even though it was designed to be a one-handed weapon. However if you use two-hands the weapon is easier to use. That is why the rules say you can not use it in one hand.
In short the proper use is one-handed, but it takes special training to be able to use it properly. Normally this just means a penalty, but the text clearly says the weapon can not be used in one hand, so it can't.
They could have listed it as a light weapon, but if the text disagrees then that is how it works.
Another example of text trumping table is the sawtooth sabre. It is listed as a one-handed weapon if you have martial weapon proficiency, but with the EWP feat, you can treat as a light weapon when TWF'ing.
It will also have the hit points for a one-handed weapon.
Now are you going to follow the table and treat as one-handed weapon, or follow the text and treat it as light weapon for the purpose of TWF?
That quote doesn't actually state that the weapon isn't one-handed, just that you need two hands to use it, though.
And I've never heard before that flavor text trumps how a weapon is listed in a table. That would be two very big typos if that were the case.
That is not flavor text. That is rules text.
I'm afraid Malachi is right on this one (though the whole discussion and language can be taken to extremes).
Waraxe is a one-handed exotic weapon. Any medium creature can wield it in one hand with a -4 penalty. Any dwarf can wield it in one hand as if it were a martial weapon (-4 if no martial weapon proficiency). Any large creature can do the same. Any medium creature can do the same in two hands.
Key difference is that it says:
"A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed martial weapon"
and not:
"A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed martial weapon"
Edit: The bastard sword text (which never got added to the dwarven waraxe), actually proves the point better. It *is* an exotic weapon because of this difficulty. They're both considered martial weapons when wielded two-handed, not considered martial two-handed weapons.
I will use the Bastard Sword as an example:
Sword, Bastard: A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
That is not flavor. The next line is saying it is a two-handed weapon when used as a martial weapon.
|
|
I hate to agree with him, but Malachi is right. A bastard sword and a dwarven waraxe are both one-handed weapons. That's how they're listed in the CRB, and that's what you base their item HP off of.
Why would you hate to agree with me if I'm right? It should be about the merits of the case, not about personalities.
@Wraithstrike: the hardness/HP of common objects shows the hardness/HP of weapons based on their category as objects (light/one-handed/two-handed). An object/weapon can only be one thing! It can't change the number of hit points it has based on the proficiency of the creature wielding it!
On the table, these weapons are categorised as one-handed. They are not also in the two-handed section for those without EWP.
The description of these weapons says 'too large to use in one hand without special training'. This may be fluff (you can, but you are not proficient and have a -4 attack penalty) or crunch (you can't use it one-handed at all without EWP) and that's a separate conversation. But what is not in dispute is that neither description says that they are or are treated as two-handed weapons (the weapon category), just that if you choose two wield them in two hands (a one-handed weapon being used two-handed) then you are proficient if you have Martial Weapon Proficiency from your class. This is in marked contrast to the section on using inappropriately-sized weapons, where they do count as a different category.
It's a common misconception though. : /
|
Any character can use a dwarven waraxe or a bastard sword one-handed, because it is a one-handed weapon. Without the EWP, though, they suffer the usual -4 nonproficiency penalty. Likewise, any Medium character should be able to use a Large version of the same in two hands - but without the EWP feat, they will suffer a whopping -6 attack for the size and nonproficiency penalties.
Wraith, in the table both dwarven waraxe and bastard sword are listed as 1 handed exotic weapons.
If you use 2 hands to wield either, you can treat it as a martial weapon, instead of exotic.
That does not change the fact that the weapon is a "one-handed weapon" sized weapon. For a medium character, that would make a bastard sword or dwarven waraxe a small size object.
The fact that you can 2hand it to use it as a martial weapon, does not change it to a medium size object (the size of a 2handed weapon).
How does the system of weapon sizes work with exotic weapons such as the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe, which are one-handed exotic
weapons, but two-handed martial weapons?
The bastard sword, lance, and dwarven waraxe are all two-handed
weapons that can be used in one hand under the correct circumstances (the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe are shown on Table 7–5 as one-handed exotic weapons, but they’re really two-handed weapons). Treat all three of these weapons as two-handed weapons when determining who can use them and how.
Now the rules for these weapons have not changed since 3.5, so without a significant change in wording the rules are the same
Sword, Bastard
A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
Waraxe, Dwarven
A dwarven waraxe is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way. A dwarf treats a dwarven waraxe as a martial weapon even when using it in one hand.
As you can see the wording is basically the same, so the ruling must also be the same.
Why are/were all of you ignoring the fact that the text says the weapons can not be used in one hand?
I am really curios about that.
|
|
No it doesn't, partly because it's not the same game, and partly because it's not the same company. For proof, I suggest you look at Amiri - when her backstory first appeared, several people pointed out that very FAQ to say that she wasn't allowed to wield a giant's bastard sword. James Jacobs flatly disagreed, because the RAW runs the other way.
As far as I know, while the 3.5FAQ is good for historical reasons, it is not official to pathfinder material and often pathfinder faqs are different from 3.5 faqs even when the abilities are worded nearly the same.
That being said, yes, in 3.5 they were corrected to be 2 handed weapons, that you could wield one handed with the proper feat/race. My next question would then be do you get 1.5str mod for wielding them that way?
(See the lance FAQ answer for 2 handed weapons being wielded in one hand for reasons why.)
Why are/were all of you ignoring the fact that the text says the weapons can not be used in one hand?
I am really curios about that.
The fact that the weapons say you can't wield it 1-handed without special training, does not change the fact that they are 1-handed weapons. I do not think you can 1-hand a bastard sword/dwarven waraxe for a -4 non-proficiency penalty. You simply can't do it because of the weapon text.
However, just because you are using a 1-handed weapon in two hands does not make the weapon 2-handed.
No it doesn't, partly because it's not the same game, and partly because it's not the same company. For proof, I suggest you look at Amiri - when her backstory first appeared, several people pointed out that very FAQ to say that she wasn't allowed to wield a giant's bastard sword. James Jacobs flatly disagreed, because the RAW runs the other way.
James is not the rules guy, and he has said some posters know the rules better than he does, and she is not allowed to wield a large bastard sword according to what SKR(the rules guy) said.
As far as I know, while the 3.5FAQ is good for historical reasons, it is not official to pathfinder material and often pathfinder faqs are different from 3.5 faqs even when the abilities are worded nearly the same.
That being said, yes, in 3.5 they were corrected to be 2 handed weapons, that you could wield one handed with the proper feat/race. My next question would then be do you get 1.5str mod for wielding them that way?
(See the lance FAQ answer for 2 handed weapons being wielded in one hand for reasons why.)
When are the FAQ's different? I can assure you the rules are more likely to be the same barring some change in rules philosophy.
With that aside the weapon will be treated according to how it is used.
The lance is always two-handed weapon so that ruling does not even apply here. It is just a two-handed weapon able to be wielded in one hand under a special circumstance.
With that aside the FAQ only address power attack IIRC. It does not address the strength bonus a lance gets.
I guess this needs and FAQ also then.
I will create the thread and put a link to it here.
The lance is always two-handed weapon so that ruling does not even apply here. It is just a two-handed weapon able to be wielded in one hand under a special circumstance.
The bastard sword is always a one-handed weapon, the ruling applies because it shows a weapon type (light, 1hand, 2hand) doesn't change because of circumstances. It is just a one-handed weapon able to be wielded in two hands under a special circumstance.(Someone with martial proficiency).
Why are/were all of you ignoring the fact that the text says the weapons can not be used in one hand?
I am really curios about that.
The fact that the weapons say you can't wield it 1-handed without special training, does not change the fact that they are 1-handed weapons. I do not think you can 1-hand a bastard sword/dwarven waraxe for a -4 non-proficiency penalty. You simply can't do it because of the weapon text.
However, just because you are using a 1-handed weapon in two hands does not make the weapon 2-handed.
In that case we agree. I see it as a one-handed weapon exotic weapon, that is treated as two-handed weapon martial weapon without the EWP.
I also said it was a one-handed weapon upthread when asked about the number of hit points it would have.
Look at the text again.
"A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon."
"A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way. A dwarf treats a dwarven waraxe as a martial weapon even when using it in one hand."
It is not treated as a two-handed martial weapon without EWP.
If you use 2 hands, you can treat it as a martial weapon. It does not change the fact that it is a 1-handed weapon being used in 2 hands.
All 1-handed weapons have the option of being used in 2 hands for the bonus str/power attack options. It doesn't change the fact that they are 1-handed weapons.
Without EWP it is a 1-handed exotic weapon, treated as a 1-handed martial weapon that cannot use 1-handed and you must use in 2 hands. It is still a small object. (Not a medium object, as a 2-handed weapon would be.)
|
|
Why are/were all of you ignoring the fact that the text says the weapons can not be used in one hand?
I am really curios about that.
The fact that the weapons say you can't wield it 1-handed without special training, does not change the fact that they are 1-handed weapons. I do not think you can 1-hand a bastard sword/dwarven waraxe for a -4 non-proficiency penalty. You simply can't do it because of the weapon text.
However, just because you are using a 1-handed weapon in two hands does not make the weapon 2-handed.
In that case we agree. I see it as a one-handed weapon exotic weapon, that is treated as two-handed weapon martial weapon without the EWP.
I also said it was a one-handed weapon upthread when asked about the number of hit points it would have.
It's not 'treated as' a two-handed weapon, it's 'treated as' a martial weapon, being used two-handed even though it is a one-handed weapon.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dwarven Waraxe and Bastard Sword are One-handed Exotic Weapons.
They never change handedness, ever.
Unless you are wielding an inappropriately sized version, they continue to be One Handed weapons, no matter how you wield them.
Feats, class abilities, and effects, all treat them as One handed weapons.
They never stop being One-handed weapons.