|
| 11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the purposes of being sundered (hardness, hitpoints, etc.), is a Bastard Sword (or Dwarven Waraxe, Katana, or Great Terbutje) a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon.
This question derives from the Bastard Swords, Dwarven Waraxes, and handiness thread.
Essentially, 3.5 treated the bastard sword as a two-handed weapon, though it was listed as a one-handed exotic weapon. Paizo also lists the bastard sword as a one-handed exotic weapon. The description of the weapon between the two rules is, for all practical purposes, identical.
Based on the Amiri iconic character, we know that Paizo is treating the bastard sword differently than it was treated in 3.5, but what is the change?
Is the Amiri build treating the bastard sword as a one-handed weapon?
Or, is the Amiri build treating the bastard sword as a two-handed weapon, but giving credit for the Exotic Weapon Proficiency?
(In 3.5, Amiri wouldn't have been able to use a large bastard sword because the EWP wasn't considered. The bastard sword was strictly a two-handed weapon).
If we knew how Paizo thinks the bastard sword should act when it is sundered, we would have a better idea (though, an answer to this question won't necessarily answer the question in the other thread).
EDIT: While there will certainly be some overlap in discussion between the two threads, and while this question is most definitely intertwined with the question in the other thread, I do think it is distinct enough to warrant it's own FAQ thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a two-handed weapon. Special training lets you use it in one-hand, but if anyone else picked it up without that feat, they'd be using it as a two-handed weapon because that's what it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQed for you
|
Reading through the last 100 posts of the other thread, I found this:
I'm not saying that the bastard sword physically becomes a two-handed weapon if you don't have the EWP. The physical characteristics of the weapon are as a one-handed weapon. Just like the physical characteristics of a greatsword are that of a two-handed weapon.
So I have to ask, why did you decide to post this thread?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ'ed
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Reading through the last 100 posts of the other thread, I found this:
I'm not saying that the bastard sword physically becomes a two-handed weapon if you don't have the EWP. The physical characteristics of the weapon are as a one-handed weapon. Just like the physical characteristics of a greatsword are that of a two-handed weapon.So I have to ask, why did you decide to post this thread?
Million-dollar question, right there.
|
|
So I have to ask, why did you decide to post this thread?
1) there is obviously a dispute, as shown within the first four posts of this very thread. That alone makes it FAQ worthy.
2) my original post shows why. What I may personally feel doesn't preclude my ability to be responsible and recognize that there is obviously a dispute that can be resolved by the PDT.
|
|
Actually, I love that you referenced Amiri. Wouldn't the fact that she is able to wield a large-sized Bastard Sword imply that a medium-sized Bastard Sword is already considered a one-handed weapon? If it was deemed to be a two-handed weapon from the start, she could never wield a larger version of it.
|
|
There is no text anywhere in the entire Pathfinder RPG ruleset that ever says that a bastard sword ever is, or is even treated as, a two-handed weapon.
There is no text anywhere in the entire 3.5 RPG ruleset that ever says that a bastard sword ever is, or is even treated as, a two-handed weapon...even though we know it was treated as such in 3.5.
|
|
Actually, I love that you referenced Amiri. Wouldn't the fact that she is able to wield a large-sized Bastard Sword imply that a medium-sized Bastard Sword is already considered a one-handed weapon? If it was deemed to be a two-handed weapon from the start, she could never wield a larger version of it.
I don't love that you're completely ignoring what I was saying about Amiri. Did you read the part about "taking the EWP into account" or did you conveniently stop reading after "two-handed weapon".
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There is no text anywhere in the entire Pathfinder RPG ruleset that ever says that a bastard sword ever is, or is even treated as, a two-handed weapon.There is no text anywhere in the entire 3.5 RPG ruleset that ever says that a bastard sword ever is, or is even treated as, a two-handed weapon...even though we know it was treated as such in 3.5.
And if memory serves, you said before that the reason it was treated as a two-handed weapon in 3.5 is because there was a 3.5 FAQ that said so.
No such FAQ exists in Pathfinder.
So perhaps I should amend my earlier statement to say "There is no text anywhere in the entire Pathfinder RPG ruleset, FAQ, or other official rules source that ever says that a bastard sword ever is, or is even treated as, a two-handed weapon."
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And for the record, designer Sean K Reynolds has stated in the past that part of why FAQ issues don't always get addressed as quickly as we'd sometimes like is because they have to wade through a FAQ queue that's flooded with asinine questions that amount to "Does rule X work the way the book says it works, or does it work this other way that it never says anywhere?"
Let's not abuse the FAQ system, people.
|
|
There is no text anywhere in the entire Pathfinder RPG ruleset that ever says that a bastard sword ever is, or is even treated as, a two-handed weapon.There is no text anywhere in the entire 3.5 RPG ruleset that ever says that a bastard sword ever is, or is even treated as, a two-handed weapon...even though we know it was treated as such in 3.5.And if memory serves, you said before that the reason it was treated as a two-handed weapon in 3.5 is because there was a 3.5 FAQ that said so.
No such FAQ exists in Pathfinder.
So perhaps I should amend my earlier statement to say "There is no text anywhere in the entire Pathfinder RPG ruleset, FAQ, or other official rules source that ever says that a bastard sword ever is, or is even treated as, a two-handed weapon."
No such statement exists from Pathfinder that says that it should be treated differently than it was in 3.5—you still haven't resolved that quandary.
From the Golem's site: "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. You can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon."
Shows what I get for not double checking that.
Bastard Swords are listed under exotic One-Handed melee weapons. I thought they were listed as two-handed martial weapons, with the text saying you could get them as one-handers with EWP. Would've made a lot more sense if it was the other way around.
I still think that 'What do most people in the world see it / use it as?' is a good argument though. It's the same reason you can't enchant an improvised weapon as a weapon, even if you are able to treat it as a weapon. Just because it's a weapon for you doesn't mean it's a weapon for...well just about everyone else. You're the exception and reality doesn't bend to your pathetic concerns ;)
|
|
Actually, I love that you referenced Amiri. Wouldn't the fact that she is able to wield a large-sized Bastard Sword imply that a medium-sized Bastard Sword is already considered a one-handed weapon? If it was deemed to be a two-handed weapon from the start, she could never wield a larger version of it.I don't love that you're completely ignoring what I was saying about Amiri. Did you read the part about "taking the EWP into account" or did you conveniently stop reading after "two-handed weapon".
Ah, see, that's a discussion for the other thread.
You asked specifically for this thread if it is considered a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon, for the purpose of sundering.
And, since not even a Titan Mauler can wield a large-sized two-handed weapon, I need not read further beyond "two-handed weapon".
|
|
And for the record, designer Sean K Reynolds has stated in the past that part of why FAQ issues don't always get addressed as quickly as we'd sometimes like is because they have to wade through a FAQ queue that's flooded with asinine questions that amount to "Does rule X work the way the book says it works, or does it work this other way that it never says anywhere?"
Let's not abuse the FAQ system, people.
Like the fighter feat retraining thread?
There is obviously a need for the PDT to rule on this issue: Cheapy said two-handed, Nefreet said one-handed. Both are legitimate positions.
The fact that YOU "know" it to be a one-handed weapon, and therefore feel any FAQ question about the issue is a waste of Paizo's valuable resources and proclaim such to your inferiors, is pretty arrogant and is inconsiderate to those who feel it is a worthy question.
Actually, I love that you referenced Amiri. Wouldn't the fact that she is able to wield a large-sized Bastard Sword imply that a medium-sized Bastard Sword is already considered a one-handed weapon? If it was deemed to be a two-handed weapon from the start, she could never wield a larger version of it.
It has to do with a lot of discussion in the other thread.
The options basically boil down to this:
1. One-Handed Exotic Weapon for all purposes, but if you don't have the feat you can still one-hand the weapon, but at a penalty.
2. Two-Handed Martial Weapon you're allowed to use as a One-Handed Exotic Weapon if you have the feat.
3. One-Handed Exotic Weapon that is treated like a Two-Handed Martial Weapon for the purpose of determining who is capable of wielding it and how (without the feat).
My preference is option 3. The only purpose for which it isn't treated like a One-Handed Exotic Weapon is to determine who is capable of wielding it and how. But option 1 isn't much of a problem for me, assuming a medium creature wielding an oversized bastard sword takes the nonproficiency penalty as well as the size penalty.
There is obviously a need for the PDT to rule on this issue: Cheapy said two-handed, Nefreet said one-handed. Both are legitimate positions.
The fact that YOU "know" it to be a one-handed weapon, and therefore feel any FAQ question about the issue is a waste of Paizo's valuable resources and proclaim such to your inferiors, is pretty arrogant and is inconsiderate to those who feel it is a worthy question.
Cheapy has since pointed out he was mistaken, once he went back and looked at what it said in the table.
The weapons table lists the bastard sword as a one-handed weapon. D&D 3.5 FAQs are not a valid source to say otherwise.
|
|
Actually, I love that you referenced Amiri. Wouldn't the fact that she is able to wield a large-sized Bastard Sword imply that a medium-sized Bastard Sword is already considered a one-handed weapon? If it was deemed to be a two-handed weapon from the start, she could never wield a larger version of it.I don't love that you're completely ignoring what I was saying about Amiri. Did you read the part about "taking the EWP into account" or did you conveniently stop reading after "two-handed weapon".Ah, see, that's a discussion for the other thread.
You asked specifically for this thread if it is considered a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon, for the purpose of sundering.
And, since not even a Titan Mauler can wield a large-sized two-handed weapon, I need not read further beyond "two-handed weapon".
I'm apparently not presenting the message correctly, because you're not getting it.
I'm using Amiri to put into context why this question I ask is relevant.
A definite answer to whether the bastard sword has 10 hp or 5 hp might give us some insight.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
No such statement exists from Pathfinder that says that it should be treated differently than it was in 3.5—you still haven't resolved that quandary.
There's no quandary to resolve.
No statement exists from Pathfinder that sneak attack works differently than in 3.5, so does that mean rogues still can't sneak attack undead? There's nothing saying that they now can.
No statement exists that clerics don't get Turn Undead anymore. Sure, the class description adds Channel Energy, but there's nothing saying it replaces turning, so they must get both, right? Same with heavy armor; the Pathfinder CRB only lists proficiency in light and medium, but since there's no statement that we should treat it differently than 3.5, they must still get heavy and it was just omitted by accident. Right?
Things not published/stated by Paizo have no bearing on how Paizo's game rules work. If we can't agree on that as a basic premise, then there can be no discussion - just a bunch of going around in circles. Hence why I gave up on that other thread and just clicked "hide" on it.
|
|
There is obviously a need for the PDT to rule on this issue: Cheapy said two-handed, Nefreet said one-handed. Both are legitimate positions.
The fact that YOU "know" it to be a one-handed weapon, and therefore feel any FAQ question about the issue is a waste of Paizo's valuable resources and proclaim such to your inferiors, is pretty arrogant and is inconsiderate to those who feel it is a worthy question.
Cheapy has since pointed out he was mistaken, once he went back and looked at what it said in the table.
The weapons table lists the bastard sword as a one-handed weapon. D&D 3.5 FAQs are not a valid source to say otherwise.
I saw Cheapy's correction after the fact.
That doesn't mean that it isn't a valid question.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
and proclaim such to your inferiors
Don't put words in my mouth - I never tried to tell anyone they were inferior to me.
I stated a fact (that there's nothing from Paizo ever stating anything to the effect that the bastard sword is ever a 2H weapon) as well as some commentary and additional information, but did not call anyone names.
If being contradicted and being treated as inferior feel equivalent to you, that's not my fault.
and proclaim such to your inferiors
Don't put words in my mouth - I never tried to tell anyone they were inferior to me.
Uh, Jiggy, I don't think he was talking to you...
|
|
No such statement exists from Pathfinder that says that it should be treated differently than it was in 3.5—you still haven't resolved that quandary.There's no quandary to resolve.
No statement exists from Pathfinder that sneak attack works differently than in 3.5, so does that mean rogues still can't sneak attack undead? There's nothing saying that they now can.
No statement exists that clerics don't get Turn Undead anymore. Sure, the class description adds Channel Energy, but there's nothing saying it replaces turning, so they must get both, right? Same with heavy armor; the Pathfinder CRB only lists proficiency in light and medium, but since there's no statement that we should treat it differently than 3.5, they must still get heavy and it was just omitted by accident. Right?
Things not published/stated by Paizo have no bearing on how Paizo's game rules work. If we can't agree on that as a basic premise, then there can be no discussion - just a bunch of going around in circles. Hence why I gave up on that other thread and just clicked "hide" on it.
*Bertstare*
It is known that those examples that you give work differently BECAUSE THERE WERE CHANGES MADE in those examples. As far as sneak attacking undead, the change was made in the undead subtype.
As far as the bastard sword, THERE WERE NO CHANGES MADE between 3.5 and Pathfinder, and since THERE WERE NO CHANGES MADE, why would I expect things to work differently?
But, it's ok. Invalidate the question by invalidating the person who asked it. It's a fallacy that doesn't actually address the question, but it does a good job at ensuring the question gets buried.
...No? It was sure framed like a reply to my post that he quoted.
I was looking at the sequence of posts. Despite quoting you I think he was replying to more than just you. I may be mistaken, but the internet is an easy place to mistake intent.
|
|
and proclaim such to your inferiorsDon't put words in my mouth - I never tried to tell anyone they were inferior to me.
I stated a fact (that there's nothing from Paizo ever stating anything to the effect that the bastard sword is ever a 2H weapon) as well as some commentary and additional information, but did not call anyone names.
If being contradicted and being treated as inferior feel equivalent to you, that's not my fault.
I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I was making a point that your post comes off as haughty arrogance.
EDIT: by that I mean that you think you know the answer, that you think it is unworthy of an FAQ, and that my asking the question is a waste of time.
As far as the bastard sword, THERE WERE NO CHANGES MADE between 3.5 and Pathfinder, and since THERE WERE NO CHANGES MADE, why would I expect things to work differently?
But there was a change made. The change was that they didn't keep the language of the 3.5 FAQ that made it a two-handed weapon when they wrote the description for Pathfinder.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Invalidate the question by invalidating the person who asked it.
Could we stop with the personal attacks please? I never said anything to invalidate you as a person. I rebutted your arguments and made claims of my own, but I said nothing about you, so please stop trying to paint me as the bad guy by claiming I've said things that I haven't.
In our games we treat it as a two handed martial weapon that can be one handed with the Exotic feat. As such we use the larger weapon profile for sunder purposes.
At our table, Bastard Swords, Dwarven Waraxes and such 'hand and a half' weapons are a group of exeptions to the standards. Seems pretty clear and simple to us and has caused 0 rules issues.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In our games we treat it as a two handed martial weapon that can be one handed with the Exotic feat. As such we use the larger weapon profile for sunder purposes.
At our table, Bastard Swords, Dwarven Waraxes and such 'hand and a half' weapons are a group of exeptions to the standards. Seems pretty clear and simple to us and has caused 0 rules issues.
Great! I agree, lots of issues can be easily fixed at the table. (I should show you my lighting rules rewrite sometime!)
However, there's a whole other subforum for that. This forum is for discussing how the rules work the way they were printed, before we do our own tailoring.
|
|
Invalidate the question by invalidating the person who asked it.Could we stop with the personal attacks please? I never said anything to invalidate you as a person. I rebutted your arguments and made claims of my own, but I said nothing about you, so please stop trying to paint me as the bad guy by claiming I've said things that I haven't.
No, you weren't attacking me personally, but you were trying to distract the other readers by presenting an apples-oranges comparison.
However, there's a whole other subforum for that. This forum is for discussing how the rules work the way they were printed, before we do our own tailoring.
Jiggy, the OP asked for responses and I gave him the rule we use. We use it based on what we have read in the core rules and from our years of gaming in 3.5 before adding Pathfinder. The rules we use are what we believe are correct based on the text as presented in the published material and what we believe the writers intended based on our reading of their work.
A bastard sword can be used as a two handed martial weapon without any special training. To us that means that is the base line, the standard of the weapon. Or you can spend a feat and get advanced training to learn how to use it as a one handed weapon. To us that indicates a more specialized way to use it from the standard of 2 handed martial.
I don't see how my response is not valid in the rules forum given that basis.
As far as the bastard sword, THERE WERE NO CHANGES MADE between 3.5 and Pathfinder, and since THERE WERE NO CHANGES MADE, why would I expect things to work differently?But there was a change made. The change was that they didn't keep the language of the 3.5 FAQ that made it a two-handed weapon when they wrote the description for Pathfinder.
They didn't explicitly adopt the 3.5 FAQ that itself did nothing to change the actual language of the weapon entry? How is that a change?
However, there's a whole other subforum for that. This forum is for discussing how the rules work the way they were printed, before we do our own tailoring.Jiggy, the OP asked for responses and I gave him the rule we use. We use it based on what we have read in the core rules and from our years of gaming in 3.5 before adding Pathfinder. The rules we use are what we believe are correct based on the text as presented in the published material and what we believe the writers intended based on our reading of their work.
A bastard sword can be used as a two handed martial weapon without any special training. To us that means that is the base line, the standard of the weapon. Or you can spend a feat and get advanced training to learn how to use it as a one handed weapon. To us that indicates a more specialized way to use it from the standard of 2 handed martial.
I don't see how my response is not valid in the rules forum given that basis.
Not only was there nothing wrong with your reply, but your table's position is right in line with how James Jacobs stated it should work (at least as far as wielding goes).
To be fair, though, that doesn't necessarily address whether the weapon should be treated as one-handed or two-handed for hit points, strength bonus when used one-handed, etc. It's listed on the one-handed exotic list, so despite Jacobs' post on wielding, it's not completely apparent as to how it should be treated for other purposes.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how my response is not valid in the rules forum given that basis.
Because this:
A bastard sword can be used as a two handed martial weapon without any special training.
...which you say you used as the basis for your interpretations, is not in the rules.
The rules say that any one-handed weapon can be wielded in two hands. They also say that if you do that with a bastard sword, you get to treat it as a martial weapon. Nowhere do the rules say that when you wield a one-handed weapon (bastard sword or not) in two hands that it is treated as a two-handed weapon.
Never, anywhere.
Let's tone down the animosity, folks.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They didn't explicitly adopt the 3.5 FAQ that itself did nothing to change the actual language of the weapon entry? How is that a change?As far as the bastard sword, THERE WERE NO CHANGES MADE between 3.5 and Pathfinder, and since THERE WERE NO CHANGES MADE, why would I expect things to work differently?But there was a change made. The change was that they didn't keep the language of the 3.5 FAQ that made it a two-handed weapon when they wrote the description for Pathfinder.
You need to re-read the actual language of the weapon entry. As I was telling Gilfalas, it never says to treat the bastard sword as a two-handed weapon. It says that wielding it two-handed (which is something you can do with *every* one-handed weapon already) will let you treat it as a martial weapon.
The rules say you can wield it two-handed as a martial weapon.
The 3.5 FAQ (or so I'm told) instead says that you can treat it as a two-handed weapon.
The Pathfinder rules still say that wielding it two-handed allows you to treat it as martial, but there's no FAQ (or any other language) saying what the 3.5 FAQ said about treating the weapon as being two-handed.
So yes, that's a change.
You need to re-read the actual language of the weapon entry. As I was telling Gilfalas, it never says to treat the bastard sword as a two-handed weapon. It says that wielding it two-handed (which is something you can do with *every* one-handed weapon already) will let you treat it as a martial weapon.
The rules say you can wield it two-handed as a martial weapon.
The 3.5 FAQ (or so I'm told) instead says that you can treat it as a two-handed weapon.The Pathfinder rules still say that wielding it two-handed allows you to treat it as martial, but there's no FAQ (or any other language) saying what the 3.5 FAQ said about treating the weapon as being two-handed.
So yes, that's a change.
You need to re-read (or read) James Jacobs post and the 3.5 FAQ. The Pathfinder entry is, for all intents and purposes, identical to the 3.5 entry.
As folks have noted, our iconic barbarian Amiri does this exact thing; she uses a Large bastard sword she got from a dead giant as her primary weapon. The ONLY way that she can wield such a weapon is by using it two-handed as an exotic weapon—thus, she has to have the Exotic Weapon (bastard sword) feat, and even then suffers a –2 penalty to attack rolls with it. Part of her story flavor is that she "can only properly wield the sword when she's raging" (as in, the +2 bonus to hit she gets cancels out her –2 penalty for wielding an oversized weapon).
If she didn't have the Exotic Weapon (bastard sword) feat, she can only use the weapon as a two handed weapon. Medium creatures simply cannot properly wield Large two handed weapons, so without the feat, she could CARRRY the sword but she couldn't use it. Best case scenario, I'd let a player who didn't have Exotic Weapon (bastard sword) use a Large bastard sword as a big improvised weapon that dealt like 1d6 damage and had a normal threat range.
If you want your character to use a Large bastard sword as a bastard sword and not a cumbersome improvised weapon in the same way you might wield a sofa or a dinner table, and you're playing in a home game, talk to your GM for final ruling.
If you're playing in the Pathfinder Society org play campaign, you need Exotic Weapon (bastard sword) as a feat to use it.
The bastard sword, lance, and dwarven waraxe are all twohanded 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. For example, a Small character cannot use a lance or bastard sword made for a Medium creature, even when mounted (in the case of a lance) or when the Small character has the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) feat.
Even if nothing else can be taken from this, the most official ruling to date we have on the Bastard Sword is that, for the purposes of determining who can wield such a weapon, treat it like a two-handed weapon.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 3.5 FAQ has no bearing on Pathfinder, especially when Paizo elected not to print any similar language.
And James Jacobs has repeatedly pointed out that he's generally talking about how he runs things at his own tables, and eventually stopped even answering rules questions for exactly this reason: he tries to be helpful, but fails to be precise in his wording and people take his choice of words to be more binding than the published rules themselves.
The most official word we have for how Pathfinder treats bastard swords is the published rules for bastard swords, and those rules never mention anything about treating it as a two-handed weapon.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The 3.5 FAQ has no bearing on Pathfinder, especially when Paizo elected not to print any similar language.
Aside from printing the weapon entry nearly verbatim (and specifically verbatim for any operative text), full well knowing how that same language had been interpreted by the 3.5 staff.
James Jacobs has repeatedly pointed out that he's generally talking about how he runs things at his own tables, and eventually stopped even answering rules questions for exactly this reason: he tries to be helpful, but fails to be precise in his wording and people take his choice of words to be more binding than the published rules themselves.
The most official word we have for how Pathfinder treats bastard swords is the published rules for bastard swords, and those rules never mention anything about treating it as a two-handed weapon.
In any event, my intent was to lay down how things "officially" work as regards how you'll see this character concept function in published adventures from us, and how it'll work in the PFS game. How it works in your own game depends on you or your GM. If my description helps, great! If it doesn't, feel free to ignore it.
His original post was FAQ requested and got a "no reply required".
Sure, it's no golden beacon of irrefutable developer intent, but it's a really good sign. It follows from a legitimate reading of the rule, too. So, good enough for me.
The 3.5 FAQ has no bearing on Pathfinder, especially when Paizo elected not to print any similar language.
And James Jacobs has repeatedly pointed out that he's generally talking about how he runs things at his own tables, and eventually stopped even answering rules questions for exactly this reason: he tries to be helpful, but fails to be precise in his wording and people take his choice of words to be more binding than the published rules themselves.
The most official word we have for how Pathfinder treats bastard swords is the published rules for bastard swords, and those rules never mention anything about treating it as a two-handed weapon.
He normally specified when he was telling use his interpretation of the rule, and "what he would allow", like he did for the Intensified Spell feat.
The rest of what you said was accurate.
Normally, if the rule language hasn't changed since 3.5, the rule hasn't changed since 3.5.
Since this is a matter of a 3.5 FAQ explaining how it works it gets a lot fuzzier - but it should be noted that it's a FAQ, not an errata.
FAQ'ed OP's post.