Bastard Sword, can I question it?

[Apocryphile]

From what was said earlier, and going from the FAQ, if you're wielding it in two hands, it's a two-handed weapon.

so by that, the answer to your question would be no.

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

If you had EWP, I would yes. You could choose to count it as one handed, even if you had two hands on it.

(Good luck, by the way. These multiple threads always go over well!)

[MechE_]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Still, I risk it all, and ask a question:

Can I choose to have a Bastard Sword still count as an One-handed weapon, even when wielded in two hands?

Going to go with no... The RAW may not be perfect, and I'm not going to try picking through the new FAQ looking for how you could accomplish what you're asking. I'm just going to say that I think the intent is fairly clear at this point and that the extra questions beyond the basic ones that have already been answered are less "frequently asked questions" are more corner cases, similar to "what happens when a creature trapped in an aqueous orb fails their save against hideous laughter?"

Which is a great question and one my group had a fun time with, but not one that I'd come to the forums asking the developers to address. It's not one people actually run into often enough to be worth getting an FAQ on. The game is solid, but it has many little problems and this is one of the smaller ones - many things I'd rather see FAQ'd before this one, sorry.

[RAuer2]

Apocryphile's understanding of it is how I read the FAQ as well.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

By the post here, anyone confused about a FAQ, is a power hungry, munchkin douche.

Sorry, that really hurt, and I am bit sore.

Yeah, that, well, yeah that post by PDT was strange to read. I definitely got a "shut the hell up" vibe there. I don't know what to say that couldn't easily be seen as snark (just text after all, no body language or voice to go by when we communicate).

The bottom line, to me, is that the rules of this game may appear to be one set of information bound in a bunch of books with awesome artwork, but in reality the rules were written by different groups of people at different times and those people had different points of view about how things worked.

Sometimes the gears of the rules machine don't mesh well, but overall the rules machine runs pretty nice. And sometimes we're not supposed to ask about the funny noises the machine sometimes makes.

As far as anyone confused by an FAQ... yeah, I thought their post was pretty rude, but not a label for everyone.

[HangarFlying]

The bigger question is under what context are you asking the question?

I mean, you've got a motive for asking, so just ask it.

[Nicos]

Apocryphile wrote:

From what was said earlier, and going from the FAQ, if you're wielding it in two hands, it's a two-handed weapon.

so by that, the answer to your question would be no.

I agree here. It semes pretty clear that it shoudl be this way.

[Starglim]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Can I choose to have a Bastard Sword still count as an One-handed weapon, even when wielded in two hands?

It counts as one-handed for some purposes, not for others. I doubt there is a circumstance in which you can choose, edit: and in general for most qualities that can change from one-handed to two-handed, it would go by the way you're wielding it.

So: One-handed for what purpose?

[Xaratherus]

FAQ wrote:

For example, if you are wielding it one-handed (which normally requires the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat), it is treated as a one-handed weapon; Power Attack only gets the one-handed bonus, you cannot use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.

If you are wielding it with two hands (whether or not you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to wield it with one hand), it is treated as a two-handed weapon; Power Attack gets the increased damage bonus, you can use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.

Question already answered by the FAQ. Are you wielding it in two hands? Then it's a two-handed weapon. Are you wielding it in one hand? Then it is a one-handed weapon (and you have the EWP - otherwise, no, you're not wielding it in one hand).

I would guess, since the prior discussion was about the magus class, that this has something to do with trying to sneak in a spell combat while wielding a bastard sword. And the answer in that case would be no - spell combat requires a one-handed weapon, and if you are currently wielding the bastard sword in two hands, it is a two-handed weapon.

[blackbloodtroll]

Well, every group I have played with, for about ten years, had an understanding of how the Bastard Sword works.

Now, it's changed.

So, I, and others, have questions how that effects it's use, in regards to feats, abilities, and such.

Look at the Power Attack FAQ.

How you are holding it, doesn't always change how it is treated.

This is new.

Also, yes, Spell Combat is one thing related to my original question.

It horrifically insulting to dare to mock, and accuse anyone asking any question about this change, as some sort of deviant.

It is ugly, at best.

Still, this thread may be closed as well, and that makes me downright sad.

[BigDTBone]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Well, every group I have played with, for about ten years, had an understanding of how the Bastard Sword works.

Now, it's changed.

So, I, and others, have questions how that effects it's use, in regards to feats, abilities, and such.

Look at the Power Attack FAQ.

How you are holding it, doesn't always change how it is treated.

This is new.

Also, yes, Spell Combat is one thing related to my original question.

It horrifically insulting to dare to mock, and accuse anyone asking any question about this change, as some sort of deviant.

It is ugly, at best.

Still, this thread may be closed as well, and that makes me downright sad.

I don't understand how your question applies to spell combat. Spell combat requires a free-hand the entire time (both spell casting and attacking) to do. I don't see how you could be holding any sword with two-hands and doing spell combat. With the exception of adding a limb, which the design team has said many many times is a circumstance that breaks the core assumptions of the rules language so they don't plan to offer clarifications on it.

[SwiftyKun]

I don't know what the huge argument was about, but doesn't the common sense rule apply here? I was always under the impression that anything that was your size category or smaller was one handed, and anything that was larger was two-handed.

It's also under the don't be a douche clause to assume that if you are using a two-handed weapon, like a greatsword, that you can still do things that involve your other hand. I.E a paladin wielding a great sword and being able to lay on hands themselves. Though using something like spell combat wouldn't work since you need to attack with the two-handed weapon in the same action as you would be using the other hand. There's a difference between needing two hands to attack with a weapon, and just holding onto a two-handed weapon with one hand while you do something else with the other.

I'm lazy though, so I apologize if I missed a few things. I'm pretty sure I have, I just don't know what the giant argument was about.

[Pathfinder Design Team]

Do not abuse the FAQ system.
The question has been answered and is clear in the FAQ. Stop wasting the design team's time answering questions that have already been answered in the FAQ.

Thread closed.