They should have said, "A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you CAN wield a ONE-handed weapon in ONE hand, INSTEAD you must have special training to use the bastard sword this way."As with many weird things in the Core Rulebook, we had about 45 seconds to put together the book, and had to focus our time on big problems like "barbarians have no interesting class feature choices" and "sorcerers have the same problem," rather than time on "the bastard sword language is weird and could be clarified a bit, even though it's had this wording for 10 years and people were able to use it despite that weirdness."
*scratches head* I was discussing the Pathfinder Design Team's FAQ response above. I would hope they took more than 45 seconds to consider it and write it up. I mean there is no hurry to get things off to the press to give an FAQ response.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem here is that people thought the instructions were flavor text.
Instructions for any particular feat/spell/etc trump any tables and normal rules. <----That is how the game works.
Like I said before it works like the katana which is better written, but uses more words.
If they had referred you to the katana for how it works would you(anyone) still be complaining?
|
The problem here is that people thought the instructions were flavor text.
Instructions for any particular feat/spell/etc trump any tables and normal rules. <----That is how the game works.Like I said before it works like the katana which is better written, but uses more words.
If they had referred you to the katana for how it works would you(anyone) still be complaining?
Sure they would! They're complaining about the fact that what they though was right has been shown to be wrong, and they're trying to justify to themselves why they feel they should still be right.
*scratches head* I was discussing the Pathfinder Design Team's FAQ response above.
And I was talking about the way the bastard sword is written in the Core Rulebook, because it would be easier to understand if it were listed as a 2H martial weapon that you could wield one-handed with EWP (bastard sword). But the language is what it is, and therefore the options are "deal with the language as it is and try to explain it in a FAQ," or "rewrite the text in the Core Rulebook so the older versions say something very different than the newer versions."
|
They're complaining about the fact that what they though was right has been shown to be wrong, and they're trying to justify to themselves why they feel they should still be right.
We were stating the rules as they were written. As I already said, prior to this ruling there was either proficiency or non-proficiency. Now there is a new classification. That doesn't mean we were wrong before, it means the rules have been changed.
It's an easy enough change for those of us who know the rules and are familiar with these forums to understand and move on, but it adds another level of complication to the game that was not needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Example 1:
Player: Can I wield a Large greatsword two-handed? I'll just take the –4 nonproficiency penalty.
Rules: You can't wield the Large greatsword if its size difference would mean you'd need more than two hands.
Example 2:
Player: Ok, can I wield a bastard sword one-handed? I'll just take the –4 nonproficiency penalty.
GM: You can't wield the bastard sword unless you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency with it.
Why are you ok with the first ruling, but not the second?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're complaining about the fact that what they though was right has been shown to be wrong, and they're trying to justify to themselves why they feel they should still be right.We were stating the rules as they were written. As I already said, prior to this ruling there was either proficiency or non-proficiency. Now there is a new classification. That doesn't mean we were wrong before, it means the rules have been changed.
It's an easy enough change for those of us who know the rules and are familiar with these forums to understand and move on, but it adds another level of complication to the game that was not needed.
The rules have changed for you. The FAQ merely confirms the way many have been playing it (and arguing) all along. There were two very different interpretations of the same "rules as they are written". Considering half of the people got it right means that there isn't anything inherently wrong with the rules as they are written.
Regardless, could the wording have been changed to make it more obviously clear to a bigger group? Certainly, but as SKR pointed out, it was much better for the PDT to keep the wording the same and then issue a FAQ to let everyone know which interpretation is the correct interpretation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Example 1:
Player: Can I wield a Large greatsword two-handed? I'll just take the –4 nonproficiency penalty.
Rules: You can't wield the Large greatsword if its size difference would mean you'd need more than two hands.Example 2:
Player: Ok, can I wield a bastard sword one-handed? I'll just take the –4 nonproficiency penalty.
GM: You can't wield the bastard sword unless you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency with it.Why are you ok with the first ruling, but not the second?
You are awesome; the Pathfinder Design Team is awesome.
Don’t let *** get to you.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're complaining about the fact that what they though was right has been shown to be wrong, and they're trying to justify to themselves why they feel they should still be right.We were stating the rules as they were written. As I already said, prior to this ruling there was either proficiency or non-proficiency. Now there is a new classification. That doesn't mean we were wrong before, it means the rules have been changed.
It's an easy enough change for those of us who know the rules and are familiar with these forums to understand and move on, but it adds another level of complication to the game that was not needed.
As Hangar said, you're presuming things actually changed. If the rules were so drastically unclear before, how is it that so many of us happened to interpret them correctly? If the rules have now changed, for everybody, why are there a large group of players who are playing it exactly like we have for the past 10+ years? It's not like this ruling is wholly unprecedented. After all, it's how this same thing worked in 3.5, which is one of the things we were trying very hard to explain.
Sure they would! They're complaining about the fact that what they though was right has been shown to be wrong, and they're trying to justify to themselves why they feel they should still be right.The problem here is that people thought the instructions were flavor text.
Instructions for any particular feat/spell/etc trump any tables and normal rules. <----That is how the game works.Like I said before it works like the katana which is better written, but uses more words.
If they had referred you to the katana for how it works would you(anyone) still be complaining?
I agree I just want them to say it.
|
|
Example 1:
Player: Can I wield a Large greatsword two-handed? I'll just take the –4 nonproficiency penalty.
Rules: You can't wield the Large greatsword if its size difference would mean you'd need more than two hands.Example 2:
Player: Ok, can I wield a bastard sword one-handed? I'll just take the –4 nonproficiency penalty.
GM: You can't wield the bastard sword unless you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency with it.Why are you ok with the first ruling, but not the second?
The FAQ still didn't answer the second part of my question - whether or not you need proficiency to wield a large-sized bastard sword in two hands.
The FAQ still didn't answer the second part of my question - whether or not you need proficiency to wield a large-sized bastard sword in two hands.Example 1:
Player: Can I wield a Large greatsword two-handed? I'll just take the –4 nonproficiency penalty.
Rules: You can't wield the Large greatsword if its size difference would mean you'd need more than two hands.Example 2:
Player: Ok, can I wield a bastard sword one-handed? I'll just take the –4 nonproficiency penalty.
GM: You can't wield the bastard sword unless you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency with it.Why are you ok with the first ruling, but not the second?
IIRC he used Amari the barbarian as an example of that working. Edit:You need the feat is what I was trying to say.
The FAQ still didn't answer the second part of my question - whether or not you need proficiency to wield a large-sized bastard sword in two hands.Example 1:
Player: Can I wield a Large greatsword two-handed? I'll just take the –4 nonproficiency penalty.
Rules: You can't wield the Large greatsword if its size difference would mean you'd need more than two hands.Example 2:
Player: Ok, can I wield a bastard sword one-handed? I'll just take the –4 nonproficiency penalty.
GM: You can't wield the bastard sword unless you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency with it.Why are you ok with the first ruling, but not the second?
Yes it did. If you don't have the feat, you treat a BS like a Greatsword (for determining if you may wield it and how). So no, you can't two-hand an oversized BS unless you have the EWP feat.
Ah. Then substitute "Large greatsword" in his example for "Large bastard sword"?
If I'm understanding the question correctly, yes. If you don't have the EWP feat, an oversized BS is as unwieldable as an oversized Greatsword. Similarly, if you don't have the EWP feat, a properly sized BS is as unwieldable in one hand as a properly sized Greatsword.
Thanks PDT!!
|
|
As long as that's what he meant, and it was just a typo. The whole confusion stemming from this ruling is comparing the Bastard Sword (and others) to two-handed weapons, which is why we kept thinking they were reclassifying them, which would be a rules nightmare, and leave lots of people upset. As long as the comparison to two-handed weapons stop, confusion will be lessened.
It really doesn't seem like this was well thought out. Or the ruling on using Armor Spikes as an off-hand attack, and I wasn't even involved in that discussion. The quality of some of these rulings lately reminds me of when 3.5 was getting closer to its end. I don't want that, I love Pathfinder, and I give a lot of money to Paizo. I hope future rulings don't continue to deviate from the established rules and generate more "exceptions".
This one was upholding the already established rule, though.
|
Example 1:
Player: Can I wield a Large greatsword two-handed? I'll just take the –4 nonproficiency penalty.
Rules: You can't wield the Large greatsword if its size difference would mean you'd need more than two hands.Example 2:
Player: Ok, can I wield a bastard sword one-handed? I'll just take the –4 nonproficiency penalty.
GM: You can't wield the bastard sword unless you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency with it.Why are you ok with the first ruling, but not the second?
Wielding a 1H weapon in 2 hands doesn't turn it into a 2H weapon. It remains a 1H weapon being used two-handed.
If the lack of a feat leaves you unable to wield a 1H weapon in one hand, it still doesn't turn it into a 2H weapon. It remains a 1H weapon that you can only use two-handed.
Using this 1H exotic weapon in two hands allows you to use it as a martial weapon. This doesn't turn it into a 2H weapon, it remains a 1H weapon being used in two hands.
So why do you keep comparing the bastard sword to a greatsword? A greatsword is a 2H weapon. A bastard sword is a 1H weapon. You should be comparing the bastard sword to a longsword, which is a 1H weapon, just like the bastard sword.
What part of the description of the bastard sword turns it into a 2H weapon?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because for those who don't have the EWP, they treat the bastard sword the same way they would treat a greatsword...kind of like we have all been trying to tell you for the last 19 pages of this thread.
This doesn't mean that the bastard sword some how magically gains 5 hp just because it has an extra hand on it. It merely means that for a creature who is not proficient in using a bastard sword in one hand, they use the bastard sword in the same manner as they would a great sword.
This. Isn't. Difficult.
Quite honestly, this whole discussion is starting to border on stupid. Even AFTER the PDT has clarified that the bastard sword works the way it has always worked, you still whine about it. It is time for you to get over yourself and move on with your life. It's one thing to respectfully disagree and voice an opinion, but you're being a jerk.
|
|
Because for those who don't have the EWP, they treat the bastard sword the same way they would treat a greatsword.
I get that this is the position he is taking, but how is he reaching that understanding? Because the description of the weapon never says to treat it as if it were a two-handed weapon!
Are these 'secret, unwritten' rules again?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My houserule for bastard swords is that the wielder can use whichever reading of the rules is favourable to his character only if the character does not know the identity of his father.
:P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's kind of rude to bulge into a thread where people clearly are having issues grasping something and shouting "this is not difficult".
It may not be difficult for you, but that doesn't make it easy for everyone. And screaming out that you're better than them doesn't make you look better, it just makes you look rude.
Because for those who don't have the EWP, they treat the bastard sword the same way they would treat a greatsword.I get that this is the position he is taking, but how is he reaching that understanding? Because the description of the weapon never says to treat it as if it were a two-handed weapon!
Are these 'secret, unwritten' rules again?
Yes it does. You just refuse to accept it as a valid interpretation of the existent language. In that regard, you are simply and undeniably incorrect. If it wasn't why have so many been able to interpret it as such for so many years?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's kind of rude to bulge into a thread where people clearly are having issues grasping something and shouting "this is not difficult".
It may not be difficult for you, but that doesn't make it easy for everyone. And screaming out that you're better than them doesn't make you look better, it just makes you look rude.
I'm not being rude. He's being willfully ignorant. He completely refuses to recognize the fact that his way of interpreting the rules was obviously not the only way to interpret them considering a large number of people had interpreted the rules correctly for a very, very long time.
It isn't difficult to understand the correct interpretation, he deliberately refuses to do so.
Example 1:
Player: Can I wield a Large greatsword two-handed? I'll just take the –4 nonproficiency penalty.
Rules: You can't wield the Large greatsword if its size difference would mean you'd need more than two hands.Example 2:
Player: Ok, can I wield a bastard sword one-handed? I'll just take the –4 nonproficiency penalty.
GM: You can't wield the bastard sword unless you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency with it.Why are you ok with the first ruling, but not the second?
Wielding a 1H weapon in 2 hands doesn't turn it into a 2H weapon. It remains a 1H weapon being used two-handed.
If the lack of a feat leaves you unable to wield a 1H weapon in one hand, it still doesn't turn it into a 2H weapon. It remains a 1H weapon that you can only use two-handed.
Using this 1H exotic weapon in two hands allows you to use it as a martial weapon. This doesn't turn it into a 2H weapon, it remains a 1H weapon being used in two hands.
So why do you keep comparing the bastard sword to a greatsword? A greatsword is a 2H weapon. A bastard sword is a 1H weapon. You should be comparing the bastard sword to a longsword, which is a 1H weapon, just like the bastard sword.
What part of the description of the bastard sword turns it into a 2H weapon?
The book you can not wield the weapon in one hand with the feat. That fact that it is one-handed weapon does not really matter at this point.
The book also says you need special training, by which they mean the EWP feat. Now it would have been nicer if they had use the katana lanaguage, but they didn't, and like SKR said they could add more words to the book or show intent with an FAQ.
I told you from the beginning the katana language was the RAI for the bastard sword. Maybe you were just trying to argue then, that you did not like the langauge use like you are now, but if that is your argument, then say that. Saying "I don't like how it is written", is a lot different from "I don't think it is supposed to work that way".
|
|
Yes it does. You just refuse to accept it as a valid interpretation of the existent language. In that regard, you are simply and undeniably incorrect. If it wasn't why have so many been able to interpret it as such for so many years?Because for those who don't have the EWP, they treat the bastard sword the same way they would treat a greatsword.I get that this is the position he is taking, but how is he reaching that understanding? Because the description of the weapon never says to treat it as if it were a two-handed weapon!
Are these 'secret, unwritten' rules again?
Some things are open to different interpretations, due to imprecise language. The first part of the description of the bastard sword could legitimately be read in two ways: cannot use it in one hand, OR can use it in one hand, but at -4.
Other things are written precisely, with only one interpretation being valid. The order in which the words are placed in a sentence has definite meaning, and changing the word order changes the meaning of the sentence.
Mathematically, 2+2=4 is not the same if rearranged to 2=2+4.
Grammatically, 'can use two-handed as a martial weapon' is not the same as 'can use as a two-handed martial weapon'.
To say that it is will be wrong forever!
A bastard sword is a one-handed, exotic weapon. In the first sentence, the only thing that gets treated differently when you use it in two hands is that it is treated as a martial weapon instead of an exotic weapon. In the second sentence, it also changes it to being treated as if it were a two-handed weapon.
But the second sentence is not the rule! The first sentence is! I don't care if 95% of people scream that 2+2=5, wrong is still wrong!
|
|
Example 1:
Player: Can I wield a Large greatsword two-handed? I'll just take the –4 nonproficiency penalty.
Rules: You can't wield the Large greatsword if its size difference would mean you'd need more than two hands.Example 2:
Player: Ok, can I wield a bastard sword one-handed? I'll just take the –4 nonproficiency penalty.
GM: You can't wield the bastard sword unless you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency with it.Why are you ok with the first ruling, but not the second?
Wielding a 1H weapon in 2 hands doesn't turn it into a 2H weapon. It remains a 1H weapon being used two-handed.
If the lack of a feat leaves you unable to wield a 1H weapon in one hand, it still doesn't turn it into a 2H weapon. It remains a 1H weapon that you can only use two-handed.
Using this 1H exotic weapon in two hands allows you to use it as a martial weapon. This doesn't turn it into a 2H weapon, it remains a 1H weapon being used in two hands.
So why do you keep comparing the bastard sword to a greatsword? A greatsword is a 2H weapon. A bastard sword is a 1H weapon. You should be comparing the bastard sword to a longsword, which is a 1H weapon, just like the bastard sword.
What part of the description of the bastard sword turns it into a 2H weapon?
The book you can not wield the weapon in one hand with the feat. That fact that it is one-handed weapon does not really matter at this point.
The book also says you need special training, by which they mean the EWP feat. Now it would have been nicer if they had use the katana lanaguage, but they didn't, and like SKR said they could add more words to the book or show intent with an FAQ.
I told you from the beginning the katana language was the RAI for the bastard sword. Maybe you were just trying to argue then, that you did not like the langauge use like you are now, but if that is your argument, then say that. Saying "I don't like how it is...
If the words don't match the intent, then the words must be changed so that they do.
Errata it and it'll be fine, but you can't pretend that it means the opposite of what it says.
|
|
Again, Malachi, you're completely ignoring the obvious fact that some of us got it right. You may not have interpreted it the same way as we did, and that is fine. We all said that it was entirely possible for your interpretation to be the correct one. But guess what, the PDT stepped in and told us which interpretation is the correct one. It is quite incomprehensible that the PDT has told you how to read it, but you still argue that they're wrong (the guys who make the rules) because of how you think it should be interpreted.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, Malachi, you're completely ignoring the obvious fact that some of us got it right. You may not have interpreted it the same way as we did, and that is fine. We all said that it was entirely possible for your interpretation to be the correct one. But guess what, the PDT stepped in and told us which interpretation is the correct one. It is quite incomprehensible that the PDT has told you how to read it, but you still argue that they're wrong (the guys who make the rules) because of how you think it should be interpreted.
THERE...ARE...FOUR...LIGHTS!
If the words don't match the intent, then the words must be changed so that they do.Errata it and it'll be fine, but you can't pretend that it means the opposite of what it says.
The words do match the intent. They just don't give a perfect explanation, and I understand that is the source of your frustration, but like I said before errata space is at a premium since they are trying to avoid pushing items to another page, and nobody questioned this before the book was made so it was never rewritten.
I dont think changing those weapons is an efficient answer considering the above information. An FAQ however gives intent, and takes up no book space.
|
|
If the words don't match the intent, then the words must be changed so that they do.Errata it and it'll be fine, but you can't pretend that it means the opposite of what it says.
The words do match the intent. They just don't give a perfect explanation, and I understand that is the source of your frustration, but like I said before errata space is at a premium since they are trying to avoid pushing items to another page, and nobody questioned this before the book was made so it was never rewritten.
I dont think changing those weapons is an efficient answer considering the above information. An FAQ however gives intent, and takes up no book space.
I agree that word count could be an issue.
Changing 'can use two-handed as a martial weapon' to 'can use as a two-handed martial weapon' doesn't change the word count at all, and would change the meaning of the sentence to match their intent.
|
|
Again, Malachi, you're completely ignoring the obvious fact that some of us got it right. You may not have interpreted it the same way as we did, and that is fine. We all said that it was entirely possible for your interpretation to be the correct one. But guess what, the PDT stepped in and told us which interpretation is the correct one. It is quite incomprehensible that the PDT has told you how to read it, but you still argue that they're wrong (the guys who make the rules) because of how you think it should be interpreted.THERE...ARE...FOUR...LIGHTS!
Sorry, that one went over my head. Would you mind explaining the reference?
|
|
Sorry, that one went over my head. Would you mind explaining the reference?Again, Malachi, you're completely ignoring the obvious fact that some of us got it right. You may not have interpreted it the same way as we did, and that is fine. We all said that it was entirely possible for your interpretation to be the correct one. But guess what, the PDT stepped in and told us which interpretation is the correct one. It is quite incomprehensible that the PDT has told you how to read it, but you still argue that they're wrong (the guys who make the rules) because of how you think it should be interpreted.THERE...ARE...FOUR...LIGHTS!
Star Trek: The Next Generation.
Picard is kidnapped and tortured. As part of the torture he is told to say how many lights there are. There are four. Whenever he says this, he is tortured and told that there are five. Eventually, the torture works and he actually begins to see five lights when there are in fact still four.
When he is finally released, he shouts 'THERE...ARE...FOUR...LIGHTS' in defiance at his torturer.
No matter the torture, no matter what his mind has been conditioned to believe, the reality is that there were only ever four lights.
No matter how many people say that 'can use two-handed as a martial weapon' means 'can use as a two-handed martial weapon', the reality is that these two sentences mean different things.
Errata it to the second sentence; no problem. But keep the words that mean one thing and just pretend that they mean the other...that's a problem.
Malachi, if you insist on relying on purely RAW, answer this question.
If a nonfeat having character can wield it as "a martial weapon", which kind? After all there is no such thing as just a martial weapon. There are light martial weapons, one-handed martial weapons, two-handed martial weapons, and ranged martial weapons. There are no "just martial weapons". If the BS is to be treated "as a martial weapon", it jas to be treated as a specific kind of martial weapon. So, which one is it?
It can't be ranged or light; that'd be purely nonsensical. It has to be either one-handed or two-handed. Are you going to argue that it should be treated like a one-handed martial weapon? That'd be silly, of course. Why wouldn't you be able to one-hand it proficiently without the feat if it's treated "as a one-handed martial weapon"? So, there's only one category left. Does it make sense to treat it like a two-handed martial weapon? Absolutely. The rules are clear you can only use it in one hand proficiently if you have the EWP feat. But you can use it in two-hands as if it were a martial weapon. If you can't use it in one hand, but it still acts like a martial weapon, there's a category for those types of weapons: two-handed martial weapons.
Answer what kind of martial weapon it is. Insisting on the RAW position like you are without followoing up and addressing this question is like asking an American where they're from and them responding "Dakota". That's an incomplete answer. Is it North or South Dakota. So what kind of martial weapon do you get to treat it like?
Well their "intention" is for it truly to be a two-handed martial weapon that EWP allows you to wield as a one-handed exotic weapon. This is obvious not only from the way they compare it to other two-handed weapons, but also with the SKR's comment above that it would be easier to understand if they made the change, but can't do it due to some concern with new print runs not matching older ones.
They intend for it to be treated like a two-handed martial weapon without the feat. Whether it's two-handed and the feat is an exception or the other way around is ultimately irrelevant for the puprose of determining who may wield it and how (though the former obviously would be somewhat more clear). It's to be treated like a two-handed weapon without the feat. That's what matters here.
|
|
Malachi, if you insist on relying on purely RAW, answer this question.
If a nonfeat having character can wield it as "a martial weapon", which kind? After all there is no such thing as just a martial weapon. There are light martial weapons, one-handed martial weapons, two-handed martial weapons, and ranged martial weapons. There are no "just martial weapons". If the BS is to be treated "as a martial weapon", it jas to be treated as a specific kind of martial weapon. So, which one is it?
It can't be ranged or light; that'd be purely nonsensical. It has to be either one-handed or two-handed. Are you going to argue that it should be treated like a one-handed martial weapon? That'd be silly, of course. Why wouldn't you be able to one-hand it proficiently without the feat if it's treated "as a one-handed martial weapon"? So, there's only one category left. Does it make sense to treat it like a two-handed martial weapon? Absolutely. The rules are clear you can only use it in one hand proficiently if you have the EWP feat. But you can use it in two-hands as if it were a martial weapon. If you can't use it in one hand, but it still acts like a martial weapon, there's a category for those types of weapons: two-handed martial weapons.
Answer what kind of martial weapon it is. Insisting on the RAW position like you are without followoing up and addressing this question is like asking an American where they're from and them responding "Dakota". That's an incomplete answer. Is it North or South Dakota. So what kind of martial weapon do you get to treat it like?
The answer is this: if you use this one-handed exotic weapon in two hands, you treat it as if it were a one-handed martial weapon used in two hands.
Using a one-handed weapon in two hands is so basic to the system that this way of using them is written into the definition of one-handed weapons, and it never turns it into a two-handed weapon, nor does it ever mean you treat it is if it were a two-handed weapon.
Using a bastard sword in two hands means it's treated as a one-handed martial weapon used two-handed.
Show me in the rules where it says, "Treat as a one-handed martial weapon". Where in the rules does it say you can wield it one-handed as a martial weapon? If it's treated "as a one-handed martial weapon", why can't martial characters wield it one-handed without penalty?
Malachi: You can't claim the rules say there is a difference between "two-handed as a martial weapon" and "as a two-handed martial weapon", because "two-handed as a martial weapon" isn't used anywhere else (at least AFAIK). Linguistically, "one-handed weapon wielded in two hands" that is used when describing a longsword wielded in two hands is further from the bastard swords text than "two-handed martial weapon" is.
|
|
Show me in the rules where it says, "Treat as a one-handed martial weapon". Where in the rules does it say you can wield it one-handed as a martial weapon? If it's treated "as a one-handed martial weapon", why can't martial characters wield it one-handed without penalty?
You're kidding, right? You really don't know how to find out which category a weapon falls into?
Look on the weapons tables. They are split into 'simple', 'martial' and 'exotic', and further sub-divided into 'light', 'one-handed' and 'two-handed'. Find the weapon in question and see which table it's on and you're good to go!
Take the bastard sword as an example: it's in the exotic weapons tables, specifically the one-handed sub-table. From this, we know that it's a one-handed exotic weapon. We treat it in all ways as an exotic weapon, unless something tells is to change it or how we treat it. We treat it in all ways as a one-handed weapon, unless something tells us to change it or how we treat it.
There is something in it's description which potentially changes the 'exotic' part: you may treat it as a martial weapon, if you use it in two hands. This means that if you have a level in any class that gives you proficiency in all martial weapons, then you can use it two-handed to avoid the -4 non-proficiency attack penalty.
There is nothing that changes it from a one-handed weapon, beyond the rules for using a weapon of inappropriate size. If you use a bastard sword sized for you, it is a one-handed weapon. Nothing in it's description changes this. There is something which means you must use it in two hands if you lack EWP, but we all know that using a one-handed weapon in two hands doesn't change it into a two-handed weapon.
Yeah, really Malachi, and this goes for several topics, some constructive criticism: You're good at finding rules. But I think you're a little too sure of yourself (I tend to do that myself on and off, and usually get called out on it when it happens) and see rules where there are none. Claiming RAW trumps the words of the developer team only has value when RAW is clear and not in any way ambigous and uses specific wording.
I mean, you can be good at putting forth a well-structured argument, and your posts have shifted my opinion more than once, but if you think twice before you post, you could be even better. Try not to grasp for straws or fight a battle you can never win and you'll see that your posts become much more useful.
You often give a lot of good input. Just don't get in over your head.
I thought your interpretation had more going for it than the opposite before, so it's not that I don't see what you mean. But the rules were never crystal clear, and so a ruling from the design team is a proper ruling; they never changed the rules, they clarified an ambiguous rule. In my opinion it'd been better if they went your way with the ruling, but hey, life is life and I often disagree with rulings by the PF team.