Is a Bastard Sword a one-handed or a two-handed weapon?


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 327 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Horselord wrote:
So for the non-proficient, a medium sized character wielding a medium bastard sword can only wield it with two hands, yet the same character wielding a small bastard sword treats it as a light weapon because it is listed as one-handed!? That doesn't seem right yet it is RAW.

That doesn't seem right does it? What if we said this:

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.

Now let's look at your example, non proficient character cannot use it one handed but can use it two handed as a martial weapon. Reducing the weapon's size reduces its "handed ness" So the weapon (treated as a two handed weapon for the non proficient) can now be treated as a one handed weapon.

Seems fine to me.

The problem with that, is that now what happens when he is proficient?

Is it one-handed, or light, or does he have a choice?

Can he use Piranha Strike?

Can he wield with two hands for more damage?

What about Power Attack?

Not so simple.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Horselord wrote:
So for the non-proficient, a medium sized character wielding a medium bastard sword can only wield it with two hands, yet the same character wielding a small bastard sword treats it as a light weapon because it is listed as one-handed!? That doesn't seem right yet it is RAW.

That doesn't seem right does it? What if we said this:

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.

Now let's look at your example, non proficient character cannot use it one handed but can use it two handed as a martial weapon. Reducing the weapon's size reduces its "handed ness" So the weapon (treated as a two handed weapon for the non proficient) can now be treated as a one handed weapon.

Seems fine to me.

The problem with that, is that now what happens when he is proficient?

Is it one-handed, or light, or does he have a choice?

Can he use Piranha Strike?

Can he wield with two hands for more damage?

What about Power Attack?

Not so simple.

Then he treats it as a one handed weapon, smaller size makes it a light weapon. Where is the trouble?

Silver Crusade

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Horselord wrote:
So for the non-proficient, a medium sized character wielding a medium bastard sword can only wield it with two hands, yet the same character wielding a small bastard sword treats it as a light weapon because it is listed as one-handed!? That doesn't seem right yet it is RAW.

That doesn't seem right does it? What if we said this:

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.

Now let's look at your example, non proficient character cannot use it one handed but can use it two handed as a martial weapon. Reducing the weapon's size reduces its "handed ness" So the weapon (treated as a two handed weapon for the non proficient) can now be treated as a one handed weapon.

Seems fine to me.

The description you quoted never says 'treat it as a two-handed weapon if you lack EWP'. Yet you act as though it said that. Not just you; even the devs.

That's the discrepancy. Acting as if it said something it doesn't say.

Even now you're convinced that the description tells us to treat the BS as if it was one step bigger if you lack the EWP.

But it just doesn't.

It does not follow that if you can't use a one-handed weapon in one hand (and can only use it in two) that you treat is as a two-handed weapon! This is not part of the rule system. In this system one-handed weapons used in two hands remain one-handed weapons, and nothing in the BS description says otherwise.

Nobody denies that the PDT can errata it to match what they act as if it does say, but this discrepancy exists and should be resolved.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


Then he treats it as a one handed weapon, smaller size makes it a light weapon. Where is the trouble?

You are not really seeing it are you?

You are implying that without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, they would treat it as a two-handed weapon, but a PC with the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, can no longer do so.

You are aware, that there are feats, and class abilities, that work differently with a two-handed, or One-handed ability?

So, let's say, a Two-handed Fighter, without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, can use all his abilities with a Bastard Sword, but with the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, he cannot?


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


Then he treats it as a one handed weapon, smaller size makes it a light weapon. Where is the trouble?

You are not really seeing it are you?

You are implying that without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, they would treat it as a two-handed weapon, but a PC with the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, can no longer do so.

You are aware, that there are feats, and class abilities, that work differently with a two-handed, or One-handed ability?

So, let's say, a Two-handed Fighter, without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, can use all his abilities with a Bastard Sword, but with the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, he cannot?

"A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon."

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

A character can use a Longsword two handed as a Martial weapon.

This statement is absolute truth.

Is a Longsword a two handed weapon, when wielded with two hands?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

NO, and it doesn't qualify for THF special class abilities either BBT. But somehow a BS is and does, until you take EWP, and then magically it doesn't.

But he doesn't want to acknowledge that's an inconsistency.


The FAQ approaches the Bastard Sword from the perspective of a 2-handed weapon that can be used in one hand if you have a special feat.

The CRB approaches the Bastard Sword from the perspective of a 1-handed weapon that can be used in two hands if you do not have a special feat.

Because Pathfinder defines using a 2-handed weapon in two hands and using a 1-handed weapon in two hands differently which direction you approach the Bastard Sword from becomes VERY important.

- Gauss


Gauss wrote:

[...]

Because Pathfinder defines using a 2-handed weapon in two hands and using a 1-handed weapon in two hands differently which direction you approach the Bastard Sword from becomes VERY important.

- Gauss

Can you explain that to me?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Zark wrote:


a) I know that Durngrun Stonebreaker can be a bit rough at times but he did apologize, so I gotta say that your answer is far from classy.

I didn't bother reading past yet another insult. To me, you don't throw out an insult or 3 and then apologize in the same post. If you want to apologize, you apologize. You don't call someone a troll, insult their intelligence, or tell them they have reading comprehension issues, and then say 'Oh, and sorry.'. Saying 'Bless his heart' does not erase 'That's the ugliest baby I have ever seen'.

Zark wrote:


b) I’m sure we can find a 1000 things in the core book that is confusing or vague. Does we expect the Devs to clear out everything. I have hit the FAQ but I agree with Durngrun Stonebreaker that this FAQ isn’t really one of the more high pressing issues that need resolving.

There are a ton of things in the book, I agree. I don't remember ever starting a thread asking for the devs to fix anything before. I've posted in some where other's have, but I haven't started one. And I've been here for years. The only reason I opened this one is that there is a 100% disconnect between the FAQ and the RAW.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Zark wrote:
Gauss wrote:

[...]

Because Pathfinder defines using a 2-handed weapon in two hands and using a 1-handed weapon in two hands differently which direction you approach the Bastard Sword from becomes VERY important.

- Gauss

Can you explain that to me?

A two-handed weapon cannot be used one-handed. You can't switch back and forth. You have to use it as two-handed, and you get 1.5 str automatically.

If you do have a two-handed weapon that you can use one handed (Lance), then the current lance FAQ indicates you get the 1.5 str on the weapon, even one handed.

A one-handed weapon being used by two hands get's the 1.5 str bonus, but isn't a two-handed weapon. If you have a class ability that works with two-handed weapons, it doesn't fire on the one-handed weapon, even if you're using it with two-hands.


its only one handed if you have exotic weapon proficiency, EVERY Martial class has Martial Weapon proficiency ONLY unless its a race specific weapon like for dwarves and half orcs and halfling, so its a 2 handed weapon to everyone unless you use a Feat to use it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Sure, Zark.

Let's say you are a Two-Handed Fighter.

THF wrote:


Overhand Chop (Ex): At 3rd level, when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls. This ability replaces armor training 1.

Weapon Training (Ex): As the fighter class feature, but the bonuses only apply when wielding two-handed melee weapons.

Backswing (Ex): At 7th level, when a two-handed fighter makes a full attack with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls for all attacks after the first. This ability replaces armor training 2.

Piledriver (Ex): At 11th level, as a standard action, a two-handed fighter can make a single melee attack with a two-handed weapon. If the attack hits, he may make a bull rush or trip combat maneuver against the target of his attack as a free action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. This ability replaces armor training 3.

Greater Power Attack (Ex): At 15th level, when using Power Attack with a two-handed melee weapon, the bonus damage from Power Attack is doubled (+100%) instead of increased by half (+50%). This ability replaces armor training 4.

Devastating Blow (Ex): At 19th level, as a standard action, a two-handed fighter may make a single melee attack with a two-handed weapon at a –5 penalty. If the attack hits, it is treated as a critical threat. Special weapon abilities that activate only on a critical hit do not activate if this critical hit is confirmed. This ability replaces armor mastery.

Now, you use a Bastard sword, because, it's a two-handed sword. Now, you take EWP (Bastard Sword), suddenly all your class abilities stop functioning, because it's no longer a two-handed weapon for you. It changes category. Or, here's a better one, since no one would willingly gimp themselves like that. A bard uses beguiling gift to make you take and wear a cursed hat that grants 'EWP Bastard Sword', now you lose all your class abilities with the weapon you probably got weapon focus and specialization with.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The point Zark, is that a weapon should be whatever category it is, it shouldn't switch category's based on what you know. It's perfectly fine to say it is Category <blah> but can be used as <blah> but it shouldn't be <blah> except when you have this feat then it's <blah>. The weapon is what it is. How you wield it might change, but the weapon itself stays the same.

The problem with it now, is after the FAQ, it's murky, sometimes it's a two-hander, sometimes it's a one-hander, and you can do things with a smaller version that you can't do with the larger version.


Zark, I think mdt explained it properly. In short, there are a number of abilities that call out 2-handed weapons. Those abilities cannot be used with a 1-handed weapon used in two hands because the rules make a distinction between 2-handed weapon (category) and a weapon in two hands (number of hands on a weapon).

Personally, I think that the rules should be clarified so that if you have two hands on a weapon it is a 2-handed weapon for the purposes of feats and abilities that apply to 2-handed weapons. The same would hold true if you can use a 2-handed weapon in one hand. Those feats and abilities geared to one handed weapons should be able to be used at that point.

It would remove a lot of these sorts of problems.

- Gauss


"Can you take a bastard sword/katana/dwarven waraxe as your Heirloom Weapon? Why/why not?"

Much easier than quoting the entire Two-Handed Fighter archetype. ;)


Durngrun,

The problem with your question, and with this whole buisiness is that there are three factors to how a weapon is used.

1) What is the weapon's base difficulty to use it (light, 1-hand, 2-hand). The answer to this question determines the number of hitpoints and some of the feats and abilities that can be used with the weapon (those based on weapon category rather than handedness).

2) How many hands are you currently using? A number of powers and abilities can modify this. The answer to this question determines certain feats and abilities that can be used with the weapon (those based on handedness rather than weapon category).

3) What is the size of the weapon? The answer to this question changes #2. However, a medium creature using a Large 1-handed weapon is still a 1-handed weapon for the purposes of #1.

Is all this silly? Yup! But those are the rules.

Now, how does this interact with the Bastard Sword (etc) FAQ and RAW?

The FAQ states that the Bastard Sword is a 2-handed weapon. Thus, because the Bastard Sword is a *base* 2-handed weapon then certain feats and abilities are used.

The CRB states that the Bastard Sword is a 1-handed weapon. Thus, because the Bastard Sword is a *base* 1-handed weapon then other feats and abilities are used.

Both cannot be true.

Now, if the rules regarding the weapon category (base hands required) vs how many hands are currently being used were cleaned up most of this would be sidestepped. At that point we would simply be asking how many HP does the Bastard Sword have.

- Gauss


Again, to me the bastard sword is a one handed weapon, as listed in the CRB. Due to a special provision of this particular weapon, it cannot be used one handed without the appropriate feat. So without that feat, it is not a question of how many hands I am using but how many hands must I use. Without EWP:bastard sword, you must use two hands to wield the weapon. If you must use two hands, why would you not consider it a two handed weapon?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I suppose I look at it like this:

The Bastard Sword is a one-handed weapon if you have special training (the EWP feat). If you don't have the special training (the EWP feat), it's a 2-handed Martial weapon.

So your Magus can take it if they have the EWP. and your 2HF archetype can use it as a 2 handed martial weapon without the special training (because that's what it is).

The heirloom weapon trait specifies you can take it for a martial weapon. So I'd probably say that a PC taking this trait would be able to use the sword as a martial weapon (2 handed). If they wanted to use it one handed, they'd need the special training (EWP feat).

Now, if someone picks up a small sized Bastard Sword (and they're Medium), it's a one-handed weapon unless they have the special training (EWP again), and then it's a light weapon. So someone with the training could use weapon finesse, piranha strike etc with a small bastard sword, but as it's small, they'd take a -2 penalty with it.

And as for a 2HF choosing to take the EWP … why would they? But even if they did, they don't have to use that training to use the sword one handed. They can choose to use it 2 handed. Just because you know Power Attack doesn't mean you use it every round (well, mostly not).

Sorry, that post ended up way longer than I thought it'd be.


Durgrun,

We are not disputing what the CRB states. Nobody has done that. What we are stating is that the FAQ and the CRB are in dispute with each other.

Here is an exercise for you:
Evaluate the wording of the FAQ all by itself. What does it state?
Note: I am not asking you to evaluate the intent. Perceived intent varies from person to person.

Then ask is the wording of the FAQ and the wording of the CRB in disagreement?

- Gauss


Gauss wrote:

Durgrun,

We are not disputing what the CRB states. Nobody has done that. What we are stating is that the FAQ and the CRB are in dispute with each other.

Here is an exercise for you:
Evaluate the wording of the FAQ all by itself. What does it state?
Note: I am not asking you to evaluate the intent. Perceived intent varies from person to person.

Then ask is the wording of the FAQ and the wording of the CRB in disagreement?

- Gauss

Yes they are. I've said this multiple times. Often to you directly. I've also agreed that the FAQ could be cleaned up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Then I am confused as to what you are still debating. :)

- Gauss


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
If you must use two hands, why would you not consider it a two handed weapon?

Because if the number of hands on the weapon determines its size category (or effective size category), then wielding a Dagger two-handed counts as a two-handed weapon and a Two-Weapon Warrior can Overhand Chop with a Dagger so long as he wields it in two hands. Furthermore, note the Power Attack feat:

PRD wrote:
You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.

Why would they need to specify that you get the increased Power Attack bonus damage both when wielding a two-handed weapon and wielding a one-handed weapon in two hands if, by your assertion, those are both the same thing? This is the same exact issue that I and several others brought up in the conflicts between FAQ and RAW regarding half-breed races qualifying for various racially restricted rules elements. The FAQ on the Bastard Sword clarifies one singular point; that the BS can't be wielded in one hand w/out EWP, not even with non-prof penalty. But in doing so, it raises a contradiction by stating that the reason for this is that it is inherently a two-handed weapon. Now, can you answer, unambiguously and with absolute certainty, as to whether this was an oversight on their part, if this is correct and they merely forgot to add a note to errata the BS from the one-handed weapon list to the two-handed weapon list, or if they intend for there to be separate entries for it on each of the martial two-handed and exotic one-handed lists. Can you make an absolute commitment on one of these equally plausible possibilities to be put on record as your official statement and have a 2/3 chance of the Devs chiming in and picking one of the other two?


Gauss wrote:

Then I am confused as to what you are still debating. :)

- Gauss

To further clarify,

The CRB lists the bastard sword as a one- handed weapon. The FAQ refers to two-handed weapon. That, obviously, is a contradiction. I believe it should read "treated as a two-headed weapon. The point of the FAQ was to say, you cannot wield a bastard sword one handed without EWP, as stated in the CRB. I have then tried to explain how that work in examples provided by other posters.


Kazaan wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
If you must use two hands, why would you not consider it a two handed weapon?

Because if the number of hands on the weapon determines its size category (or effective size category), then wielding a Dagger two-handed counts as a two-handed weapon and a Two-Weapon Warrior can Overhand Chop with a Dagger so long as he wields it in two hands. Furthermore, note the Power Attack feat:

PRD wrote:
You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.
Why would they need to specify that you get the increased Power Attack bonus damage both when wielding a two-handed weapon and wielding a one-handed weapon in two hands if, by your assertion, those are both the same thing? This is the same exact issue that I and several others brought up in the conflicts between FAQ and RAW regarding half-breed races qualifying for various racially restricted rules elements. The FAQ on the Bastard Sword clarifies one singular point; that the BS can't be wielded in one hand w/out EWP, not even with non-prof penalty. But in doing so, it raises a contradiction by stating that the reason for this is that it is inherently a two-handed weapon. Now, can you answer, unambiguously and with absolute...

I fully understand that and I'm not claiming that using a weapon in two hands makes it a two handed weapon. A long sword is one handed. It can be used with either one or two hands. A bastard sword is a one handed weapon. Without EWP, it cannot be wielded one handed. You must use two hands. If you must (must mind, you not can) use a weapon in two hands, what would you treat the weapon as?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

The important question is:

For any purpose, at any time, is the Bastard Sword, appropriately sized, considered, and count as, a two-handed weapon?

That's it.

That's the whole of it.

Knowing how people like you love how to twist rules and responses, I'm going to say this.

The question doesn't get answered that way. In some ways, as in it's classification on the weapon tables, the answer is obviously no. Keep in mind that it is a weapon with special supplementary text. For other ways such as using it to do two handed damage on Power Attack, the answer is obviously yes. That last part also applies to weapons like the longsword, while it is classed as a single handed martial weapon, can be used to do two handed damage.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In all actuality, the FAQ question in this thread is the wrong question for the answer that is desired. The question should be: "For those characters who don't have the EWP, can they use a bastard sword (katana, dwarven waraxe, etc) for those feats, class abilities, and special situations that require a two-handed weapon? If they do have the EWP, does the bastard sword no longer apply in those situations?"

The bastard sword is a one-handed weapon. For those saying the FAQ and dev comments have created confusion, you're reading them out of context and trying to imply a certain intent for which that intent was never intended.

The intent, and the context for which you should be reading the FAQ and associated developer comments, is why you cannot wield a bastard sword, with no EWP, one handed with a -4 penalty. The FAQ is not intended to be read as a reclassification of the bastard sword.


The Bastard Sword is, and always has been, a one-handed weapon. It follows all one-handed weapon rules, save one: determining who may wield such a weapon without the EWP feat.

Treat a Bastard Sword (and, by extension, things like Dwarven Waraxes) as a two-handed weapon for determining who may wield it and how, without the EWP. For every other purpose, it is a one-handed weapon.

It's as simple as that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gauss wrote:

The FAQ states that the Bastard Sword is a 2-handed weapon. Thus, because the Bastard Sword is a *base* 2-handed weapon then certain feats and abilities are used.

The CRB states that the Bastard Sword is a 1-handed weapon. Thus, because the Bastard Sword is a *base* 1-handed weapon then other feats and abilities are used.

Both cannot be true.

Yes they can, because the Bastard Sword is one of those quirky weapons that BOTH are true, depending on the situation. It's a hand and a half sword, which means it goes both ways depending on the situation. It's placement on the weapon table is Exotic Weapon, One-Handed. However it's supplementary text also reveals that it slumms as a martial weapon for those two handed buffons who don't have the skill to handle her properly. Or for those who DO have the skill but are more concerned with meeting out damage than taking a shield option to protect themselves.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
The Bastard Sword is, and always has been, a one-handed weapon.

This is an incorrect statement. The FAQ clarifies that it is a two-handed weapon.

If it didn't, this thread wouldn't be here.


Nefreet wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
The Bastard Sword is, and always has been, a one-handed weapon.

This is an incorrect statement. The FAQ clarifies that it is a two-handed weapon.

If it didn't, this thread wouldn't be here.

For the purpose of determining who may wield it and how, which is Hangar's point. The FAQ wasn't made in a vacuum. It was responding to a specific point.

All the rest of the way throughout the multiple threads that existed when the FAQ was released, the developers consistently reiterated the point that for every other purpose, the Bastard Sword was to be treated like a one-handed weapon.

But the ultimate point is, how many of these things that people are asking about are actually issues at all if everybody understands the Bastard Sword et al. to be treated like one-handed weapons for every purpose except for determining who may wield one without the EWP feat? They're all non-issues.

Bastard Swords are one-handed weapons. Always have been. There's just a caveat on who may wield them that way.

151 to 200 of 327 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Is a Bastard Sword a one-handed or a two-handed weapon? All Messageboards