This Faq on Power Attack with a two handed weapon used in one hand saying you still get the 50% bonus from it being a two handed weapon, seems to be in contrafiction to this faq Stating that a two handed weapon treated as a one handed weapon does not gain the 50% bonus.
Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?
Yes.
Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat? If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.
So my question is, if I have a lance, while mounted, do I get the bonus or not?
Faq 1 says yes I do, but faq two says "(even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon".So what am I misunderstanding?
No, there is no contradiction. This question has come up before.
The 2nd FAQ is saying that if you have a feat or special ability that allows you to treat a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon then you treat it as a one-handed weapon for everything. \
If you have something like a lance that naturally allows you to treat it like a one handed weapon then you apply the power attack for a two-handed weapon. It just so happens that the lance is the only weapon that does that.
To keep things simple they should have just have the lance follow the other FAQ.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose what was making it difficult was what is the definition of a "special ability". The lance could be said to contain a special ability to allow it to be wielded in one hand when mounted.
It was slightly confusing.
It seems the lance faq is a specific subset of wielding a two handed weapon as a 1 handed weapon but without a feat or special ability that allows it
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The lance wielded in one hand changes ONLY how it is wielded; in all other respects it remains a two-handed weapon.
When a feat or other special ability allows you to treat a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon, it is treated that way in ALL RESPECTS.
I would agree with you that this is a contradiction. There are people who are fine with splitting the hairs, but in my view if you are wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand then you are necessarily treating it as a one-handed weapon. It's the defining characteristic that divides these two classes.
Another interesting thing:
Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands.
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
Notice that the text in the combat chapter is slightly different from that in the equipment chapter. If we accept that wielding a weapon in one hand is the same as treating the weapon as a one-handed weapon then there is no problem, the text means the same things. If we split that hair, however, the two chapters of the CRB contradict each other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yup, this thread pops up like every month or so and the answer is the same.
Using the casual language approach we've been told to use for pathfinder it indeed conflicts. But if you parse it in legalese then there's some support that they are slightly different situations and thus don't conflict.
really they should FAQ these faqs into one that is clearer.
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree this is "one of those times" that Pathfinder gets a little pedantic.
Wraithstrike highlighted the difference accurately, but it would be nice if the question didn't exist in the first place.
All of the handedness FAQs need to be lumped in to one.
heck, they could get probably 90% towards a pathfinder 2.0 just by releasing a blog on mounted combat, hands of effort, and wielding.
