What are the penalties for using a two-handed weapon with one hand?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Don’t quote the using a small sized weapon with a medium character penalties. That’s a different thing. And don’t say it isn’t possible, because it is possible.

Thunder and Fang Feat

Thunder and Fang wrote wrote:


You have mastered the ancient Shoanti Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar.

Prerequisites: Str 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (earth breaker), Weapon Focus (klar)

Benefit: You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon. When using an earth breaker in one hand and a klar in your off hand, you retain the shield bonus your klar grants to your Armor Class even when you use it to attack. Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two-weapon fighting penalty.

Normal: An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon, preventing the use of a klar in one hand without imposing penalties for using the earth breaker one-handed. A klar can be used either as a one-handed weapon or a shield; it does not grant a bonus to AC during rounds in which it is used as a weapon.

Special: This is a combat feat, and may be selected with class features that grant bonus combat feats.

As you can see, it is possible to wield a two-handed weapon properly sized for you with one hand, at a penalty. I can’t find what that penalty is though. Help would be appreciated.


most abilities make it a -2 so i would assume the normal penalties would be bigger maybe a -4 if it can even be done at all with out an ability that allows you to do so


Quote:

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.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

The text of the normal line is wrong, sorry. It's not possible unless you have a special ability that says you can. Look into the titan mauler barbarian, it'd be near pointless if you could always do that.

To say that it's possible because of the normal line of one feat from a player companion splatbook when nowhere else says its possible is just not a good or convincing argument


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do not believe there is any paizo rule that allows it, i think thunder and fang has poor wording.


The "penalty" is that it's impossible. Whoever wrote that "normal" section is wrong, you cannot use a two-handed weapon in one hand.

Weapons wrote:
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.


Jurassic Pratt wrote:

The text of the normal line is wrong, sorry. It's not possible unless you have a special ability that says you can. Look into the titan mauler barbarian, it'd be near pointless if you could always do that.

To say that it's possible because of the normal line of one feat from a player companion splatbook when nowhere else says its possible is just not a good or convincing argument

unless they erataed it titan mauler barbarian IS pointless as it only lets you wield a large long sword(or other one handed weapons) or a huge short sword(or other light weapons) at a slightly less penalty then normal which is pointless as both do the same damage as a great sword but the great sword doesn't have a penalty to hit

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:

The text of the normal line is wrong, sorry. It's not possible unless you have a special ability that says you can. Look into the titan mauler barbarian, it'd be near pointless if you could always do that.

To say that it's possible because of the normal line of one feat from a player companion splatbook when nowhere else says its possible is just not a good or convincing argument

unless the erataed it titan mauler barbarian IS pointless as it only lets you wield a large long sword(or other one handed weapons) or a huge short sword(or other light weapons) at a slightly less penalty then normal which is pointless as both do the same damage as a great sword but the great sword doesn't have a penalty to hit

No clue if it got erata'd but you can indeed wield two handed weapons one size category larger than you with it as it's currently written.

Titan Mauler wrote:

Massive Weapons (Ex) At 3rd level, a titan mauler becomes skilled in the use of massive weapons looted from her titanic foes.

She can use two-handed weapons meant for creatures one size category larger, but the penalty for doing so is increased by 4. However, the attack roll penalty for using weapons too large for her size is reduced by 1, and this reduction increases by 1 for every three levels beyond 3rd (to a minimum of 0).

This ability replaces trap sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

Jotungrip (Ex): At 2nd level, a titan mauler may choose to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand with a –2 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. The weapon must be appropriately sized for her, and it is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like. This ability replaces uncanny dodge.


WHAAAAAAT? an archetype has only moderate benefits? That has never happend.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They did errata the Titan Mauler.

Errata wrote:
She can use two-handed weapons meant for creatures one size category larger, but the penalty for doing so is increased by 4. However, the attack roll penalty for using weapons too large for her size is reduced by 1, and this reduction increases by 1 for every three levels beyond 3rd (to a minimum of 0).

EDIT: I don't know why I bother, y'all are some rules-quoting ninjas.


Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:

The text of the normal line is wrong, sorry. It's not possible unless you have a special ability that says you can. Look into the titan mauler barbarian, it'd be near pointless if you could always do that.

To say that it's possible because of the normal line of one feat from a player companion splatbook when nowhere else says its possible is just not a good or convincing argument

unless the erataed it titan mauler barbarian IS pointless as it only lets you wield a large long sword(or other one handed weapons) or a huge short sword(or other light weapons) at a slightly less penalty then normal which is pointless as both do the same damage as a great sword but the great sword doesn't have a penalty to hit

No clue if it got erata'd but you can indeed wield two handed weapons one size category larger than you with it as it's currently written.

Titan Mauler wrote:
She can use two-handed weapons meant for creatures one size category larger, but the penalty for doing so is increased by 4. However, the attack roll penalty for using weapons too large for her size is reduced by 1, and this reduction increases by 1 for every three levels beyond 3rd (to a minimum of 0).

k good to know it was erated previous wording said they could wield weapons of a larger size but still kept the handedness so it was large 1h and huge light weapons only at a penalty that got reduced as you leveled up, still not as good as the titan fighters tho(i knew theirs was erataed old text was the same handedness was still needed) the fighters only take a -2 penalty


Helpful Harry wrote:
Quote:

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.

Yes, I already know that. The word effectively is there because there is a penalty for using it with only one hand, hence not using it effectively. The feat’s normal line makes this clear. Also please read the post you are responding to. I said not to say it isn’t possible, because it is in fact possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Helpful Harry wrote:
Quote:

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.

Yes, I already know that. The word effectively is there because there is a penalty for using it with only one hand, hence not using it effectively. The feat’s normal line makes this clear. Also please read the post you are responding to. I said not to say it isn’t possible, because it is in fact possible.

Not to any effect it isn't

"I one hand the greatsword"

"Ok, it weakly clanks off the target's armor because you are unable to leverage the weight of your 2 handed weapon in only 1 hand"

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Helpful Harry wrote:
Quote:

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.

Yes, I already know that. The word effectively is there because there is a penalty for using it with only one hand, hence not using it effectively. The feat’s normal line makes this clear. Also please read the post you are responding to. I said not to say it isn’t possible, because it is in fact possible.

I addressed this upthread. A single Normal line in a feat from a player companion splatbook that references something that is literally mentioned nowhere else doesn't prove an overall rule. Unless you can find somewhere it's stated as a general rule that you can attack with a 2 handed weapon in one hand, then you can't and that line is simply a misprint.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Helpful Harry wrote:
Quote:

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.

Yes, I already know that. The word effectively is there because there is a penalty for using it with only one hand, hence not using it effectively. The feat’s normal line makes this clear. Also please read the post you are responding to. I said not to say it isn’t possible, because it is in fact possible.

Not to any effect it isn't

"I one hand the greatsword"

"Ok, it weakly clanks off the target's armor because you are unable to leverage the weight of your 2 handed weapon in only 1 hand"

“But I have a strength score of 38, and can carry more than a hundred times that weight with only one hand, so how can I not handle the weight of it?”


Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Helpful Harry wrote:
Quote:

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.

Yes, I already know that. The word effectively is there because there is a penalty for using it with only one hand, hence not using it effectively. The feat’s normal line makes this clear. Also please read the post you are responding to. I said not to say it isn’t possible, because it is in fact possible.
I addressed this upthread. A single Normal line in a feat from a player companion splatbook that references something that is literally mentioned nowhere else doesn't prove an overall rule. Unless you can find somewhere it's stated as a general rule that you can attack with a 2 handed weapon in one hand, then you can't and that line is simply a misprint.

I just wanted to point out we somehow made our last two posts at exactly the same time. If you refresh enough times, it switches the order of our posts.

Anyways, I was under the impression that the normal line of a feat IS the general rule, because they are how things work, you know, normally without the feat. Is that no longer the case? If not, could you point me to where they made that change?


Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Helpful Harry wrote:
Quote:

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.

Yes, I already know that. The word effectively is there because there is a penalty for using it with only one hand, hence not using it effectively. The feat’s normal line makes this clear. Also please read the post you are responding to. I said not to say it isn’t possible, because it is in fact possible.
I addressed this upthread. A single Normal line in a feat from a player companion splatbook that references something that is literally mentioned nowhere else doesn't prove an overall rule. Unless you can find somewhere it's stated as a general rule that you can attack with a 2 handed weapon in one hand, then you can't and that line is simply a misprint.

I just wanted to point out we somehow made our last two posts at exactly the same time. If you refresh enough times, it switches the order of our posts.

Anyways, I was under the impression that the normal line of a feat IS the general rule, because they are how things work, you know, normally without the feat. Is that no longer the case? If not, could you point me to where they made that change?

The normal line is supposed to be the general rule, but not all of the rules are written by Paizo devs, and when they go through editing which is supposed to catch errors, sometimes things get past them.

That is how we sometimes get feats that don't work at all as written such as Prone Shooter before the errata. There was another one that also did nothing, but I can't remember the name of it.

The Core Rulebook has the general rule for wielding a two-handed weapons in one hand it it says that you can't do it unless the weapon was made for a creature one size category smaller than you. In that case it is treated as a one-handed weapon so you still aren't really wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Helpful Harry wrote:
Quote:

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.

Yes, I already know that. The word effectively is there because there is a penalty for using it with only one hand, hence not using it effectively. The feat’s normal line makes this clear. Also please read the post you are responding to. I said not to say it isn’t possible, because it is in fact possible.

Not to any effect it isn't

"I one hand the greatsword"

"Ok, it weakly clanks off the target's armor because you are unable to leverage the weight of your 2 handed weapon in only 1 hand"

“But I have a strength score of 38, and can carry more than a hundred times that weight with only one hand, so how can I not handle the weight of it?”

"Because leverage doesn't work that way"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
A single Normal line in a feat from a player companion splatbook that references something that is literally mentioned nowhere else doesn't prove an overall rule.

I can understand the posters confusion. Sometimes those simple normal lines CAN change rules and be found no place else. Take the undersized mount feat: before that, there was NO mention of a mount your size being an inappropriate one. So out of the blue rules in normal lines happen.

To Reksew_Trebla: We're talking about a 5 year old feat that has not seen ANY backup for the 'normal' wording, so it's pretty clear at this point that it's worded badly and not a new rule: Even if it WAS a new rule, without noting what said penalty is, it's NOT a usable 'rule' so it's moot either way.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
A single Normal line in a feat from a player companion splatbook that references something that is literally mentioned nowhere else doesn't prove an overall rule.
I can understand the posters confusion. Sometimes those simple normal lines CAN change rules and be found no place else. Take the undersized mount feat: before that, there was NO mention of a mount your size being an inappropriate one. So out of the blue rules in normal lines happen.

That's fair. Though I blame that more on the fact that the CRB just didn't bother to flesh out mounted combat enough including never defining what a suitable mount was. Apparently they expected you to reference 3.5 for what a suitable mount was.


graystone wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
A single Normal line in a feat from a player companion splatbook that references something that is literally mentioned nowhere else doesn't prove an overall rule.
I can understand the posters confusion. Sometimes those simple normal lines CAN change rules and be found no place else. Take the undersized mount feat: before that, there was NO mention of a mount your size being an inappropriate one. So out of the blue rules in normal lines happen.

Not directly stated, but it is implied. From the Equipment chapter:

Quote:
Horse: A horse is suitable as a mount for a human, dwarf, elf, half-elf, or half-orc. A pony is smaller than a horse and is a suitable mount for a gnome or halfling.

So the Large-sized horse is a suitable mount for the Medium-sized player races, and the Medium-sized pony is suitable for the Small-sized player races but not the Medium ones. Medium paladins get a heavy horse (Large), while Small paladins get a pony (Medium). Cavaliers have the same (must be Small size to select the Medium pony). Eidolon mounts must be at least one size larger than their rider.

Not outright stated, but at least implied in multiple places, that a mount of your own size in inappropriate. So it isn't entirely out of the blue. Just mostly.

The person who wrote the feat may also have been remembering the 3.5 D&D rules, where it is explicitly stated a suitable mount must be at least one size larger than you. (Dungeon Masters Guide page 204.) Section was not Open Content, so never appeared in the SRD and therefor never made it into Pathfinder, though references (such as the limit on paladin mounts) do still imply it.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The 'normal' line there is either erroneous or refers to the penalties applied by Jotungrip and other options which allow two-handed weapons to be used one handed. Note that there are no penalties listed anywhere for doing this without an option like Jotungrip... because, as noted (and as the original poster was clearly aware) it simply isn't possible.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Maybe we should start from the feat instead of discussing only part of the text:

THUNDER AND FANG wrote:

You have mastered the ancient Shoanti Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar.

Prerequisites: Str 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (earth breaker), Weapon Focus (klar)

Benefit: You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon. When using an earth breaker in one hand and a klar in your off hand, you retain the shield bonus your klar grants to your Armor Class even when you use it to attack. Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two-weapon fighting penalty.

Normal: An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon, preventing the use of a klar in one hand without imposing penalties for using the earth breaker one-handed. A klar can be used either as a one-handed weapon or a shield; it does not grant a bonus to AC during rounds in which it is used as a weapon.

Special: This is a combat feat, and may be selected with class features that grant bonus combat feats.

Now, check the Klar: it is a light shield.

So, what we have here?
1) the earth breaker become a 1 handed weapon, you wield it with one hand.

2) if you use a earth breaker and a normal shield, if you attack with both you lose the shield bonus to AC.
If you do that with earth breaker and klar you retain the AC bonus.

3) "An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon, preventing the use of a klar in one hand without imposing penalties for using the earth breaker one-handed." Let's substitute a light shield in that phrase: "An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon, preventing the use of a light shield in one hand without imposing penalties for using the earth breaker one-handed." So what is the penalty of a light shield? "you cannot use weapons with it." (the hand that wield the light shield) and, if used to attack: "For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn."

You are trying to parse all that in another way, but the rules are clear. if you are using a two handed weapon you can't have a light or heavy shield equipped. You can have a equipped buckler but it give no AC and a -1 to hit penalty.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jeraa wrote:
Not outright stated, but at least implied in multiple places, that a mount of your own size in inappropriate. So it isn't entirely out of the blue. Just mostly.

If THAT is all to go on, then we could come to the conclusion that ONLY mounts one size bigger are allowed if we go with horse/pony. Eidolon's were the only one with 'at least one size', and that can easy be written off as a quirk of the class. So IMO, it was pretty out of the blue.

Jeraa wrote:
The person who wrote the feat may also have been remembering the 3.5 D&D rules

That would NOT surprise me in the least. A similar thing happened with me and Mark when we were talking about negative energy and constructs: he said [paraphrased] 'well of COURSE they aren't harmed by it', which is when I asked 'where does it say that?'. It took an FAQ to put in place what had been taken for granted.


graystone wrote:
Jeraa wrote:
Not outright stated, but at least implied in multiple places, that a mount of your own size in inappropriate. So it isn't entirely out of the blue. Just mostly.

If THAT is all to go on, then we could come to the conclusion that ONLY mounts one size bigger are allowed if we go with horse/pony. Eidolon's were the only one with 'at least one size', and that can easy be written off as a quirk of the class. So IMO, it was pretty out of the blue.

Jeraa wrote:
The person who wrote the feat may also have been remembering the 3.5 D&D rules
That would NOT surprise me in the least. A similar thing happened with me and Mark when we were talking about negative energy and constructs: he said [paraphrased] 'well of COURSE they aren't harmed by it', which is when I asked 'where does it say that?'. It took an FAQ to put in place what had been taken for granted.

aren't negative and positive energy necromancy effects? also constructs need an item that costs nearly 40k gold to allow them to be effected by positive and negative energy


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
aren't negative and positive energy necromancy effects

Not by default. Many uses of negative energy are necromancy effects, but nothing about negative/positive energy makes either automatically a necromancy effect.


Lady-J wrote:
graystone wrote:
Jeraa wrote:
Not outright stated, but at least implied in multiple places, that a mount of your own size in inappropriate. So it isn't entirely out of the blue. Just mostly.

If THAT is all to go on, then we could come to the conclusion that ONLY mounts one size bigger are allowed if we go with horse/pony. Eidolon's were the only one with 'at least one size', and that can easy be written off as a quirk of the class. So IMO, it was pretty out of the blue.

Jeraa wrote:
The person who wrote the feat may also have been remembering the 3.5 D&D rules
That would NOT surprise me in the least. A similar thing happened with me and Mark when we were talking about negative energy and constructs: he said [paraphrased] 'well of COURSE they aren't harmed by it', which is when I asked 'where does it say that?'. It took an FAQ to put in place what had been taken for granted.
aren't negative and positive energy necromancy effects? also constructs need an item that costs nearly 40k gold to allow them to be effected by positive and negative energy

No. I think positive energy in 2nd edition it was under necromancy which would make sense because it is in the realm of life and death, but in 3.5 and Pathfinder the spells that do positive energy are from the school of conjuration, which makes no sense to me. I would have had transmutation(changing something) or abjuration(protection) before conjuration.


Even in 3.5 you needed a feat or some other special ability to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand. They likely had a brain dump while writing. I know I've misused a rule that I knew, and then later on without even consulting a book I realized that I was wrong about it. I've also given people the right answer to a rules question on the forums, and less than 24 hours later I gave someone else the wrong answer. I can't explain it, but it happens.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder rules are sprawling and labyranthine. You can't expect anyone to even have read all of them once, let alone remember the whole bunch at all times.


Lady-J wrote:
graystone wrote:
Jeraa wrote:
Not outright stated, but at least implied in multiple places, that a mount of your own size in inappropriate. So it isn't entirely out of the blue. Just mostly.

If THAT is all to go on, then we could come to the conclusion that ONLY mounts one size bigger are allowed if we go with horse/pony. Eidolon's were the only one with 'at least one size', and that can easy be written off as a quirk of the class. So IMO, it was pretty out of the blue.

Jeraa wrote:
The person who wrote the feat may also have been remembering the 3.5 D&D rules
That would NOT surprise me in the least. A similar thing happened with me and Mark when we were talking about negative energy and constructs: he said [paraphrased] 'well of COURSE they aren't harmed by it', which is when I asked 'where does it say that?'. It took an FAQ to put in place what had been taken for granted.
aren't negative and positive energy necromancy effects? also constructs need an item that costs nearly 40k gold to allow them to be effected by positive and negative energy

Nope! In fact before the FAQ the BEST place a construct/undead could live was the positive energy plane. They gained fast healing 5 and 5 temporary hit points per round FOREVER as they ignore the fort save!!! This would quickly lead to them effectively having infinite temp hp by taking a quick vacation there. So as silly as it sounded, a plane full of positive energy was the place to go for undead if they wanted to be unkillable.


Reksew_Trebla wrote:

Don’t quote the using a small sized weapon with a medium character penalties. That’s a different thing. And don’t say it isn’t possible, because it is possible.

Thunder and Fang Feat

Thunder and Fang wrote wrote:


You have mastered the ancient Shoanti Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar.

Prerequisites: Str 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (earth breaker), Weapon Focus (klar)

Benefit: You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon. When using an earth breaker in one hand and a klar in your off hand, you retain the shield bonus your klar grants to your Armor Class even when you use it to attack. Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two-weapon fighting penalty.

Normal: An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon, preventing the use of a klar in one hand without imposing penalties for using the earth breaker one-handed. A klar can be used either as a one-handed weapon or a shield; it does not grant a bonus to AC during rounds in which it is used as a weapon.

Special: This is a combat feat, and may be selected with class features that grant bonus combat feats.

As you can see, it is possible to wield a two-handed weapon properly sized for you with one hand, at a penalty. I can’t find what that penalty is though. Help would be appreciated.

Wow, did this get off track.

Here's my 2 cents and I think it is very simple reasoning:

Proficiency in the earth breaker allows you to wield it 2-handed without penalty and you get to add 1.5 strength modifier to damage. Since the earth breaker is only a 2-handed weapon, you cannot be proficient in using it one-handed. Therefore, if you wish to use it one-handed, you take the penalty of -4 to attack for not being proficient and only get your normal strength tor damage.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jakkedin wrote:
Therefore, if you wish to use it one-handed, you take the penalty of -4 to attack for not being proficient and only get your normal strength tor damage.

NO.

half barely baked arguments from suplimentary materials do not override simple, direct, repeated, state rules from the core rule book.

You cannot do this.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Reksew_Trebla wrote:

Don’t quote the using a small sized weapon with a medium character penalties. That’s a different thing. And don’t say it isn’t possible, because it is possible.

Thunder and Fang Feat

Thunder and Fang wrote wrote:


You have mastered the ancient Shoanti Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar.

Prerequisites: Str 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (earth breaker), Weapon Focus (klar)

Benefit: You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon. When using an earth breaker in one hand and a klar in your off hand, you retain the shield bonus your klar grants to your Armor Class even when you use it to attack. Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two-weapon fighting penalty.

Normal: An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon, preventing the use of a klar in one hand without imposing penalties for using the earth breaker one-handed. A klar can be used either as a one-handed weapon or a shield; it does not grant a bonus to AC during rounds in which it is used as a weapon.

Special: This is a combat feat, and may be selected with class features that grant bonus combat feats.

As you can see, it is possible to wield a two-handed weapon properly sized for you with one hand, at a penalty. I can’t find what that penalty is though. Help would be appreciated.

No it's not.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:

Don’t quote the using a small sized weapon with a medium character penalties. That’s a different thing. And don’t say it isn’t possible, because it is possible.

Thunder and Fang Feat

Thunder and Fang wrote wrote:


You have mastered the ancient Shoanti Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar.

Prerequisites: Str 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (earth breaker), Weapon Focus (klar)

Benefit: You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon. When using an earth breaker in one hand and a klar in your off hand, you retain the shield bonus your klar grants to your Armor Class even when you use it to attack. Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two-weapon fighting penalty.

Normal: An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon, preventing the use of a klar in one hand without imposing penalties for using the earth breaker one-handed. A klar can be used either as a one-handed weapon or a shield; it does not grant a bonus to AC during rounds in which it is used as a weapon.

Special: This is a combat feat, and may be selected with class features that grant bonus combat feats.

As you can see, it is possible to wield a two-handed weapon properly sized for you with one hand, at a penalty. I can’t find what that penalty is though. Help would be appreciated.
No it's not.

I was looking for that, and couldn't remember which FAQ it was in. I will copy, and paste it.

What that links says is:

Quote:


Exotic Weapons and Hands: If a weapon is wielded two-handed as a martial weapon and one-handed with an exotic weapon proficiency, can I wield it one-handed without the exotic proficiency at a –4 penalty?
No.
Note that normally you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand. A bastard sword is an exception to that rule that you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand, but you must have special training to use the bastard sword this way. Without that special training, wielding a bastard sword one-handed is as impossible as wielding a greatsword one-handed.
(The same goes for other weapons with this one-handed exotic exception, such as the dwarven waraxe.)

Quote:

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

LOL, I was just thinking to cite that but was way too late.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unfortunately, that FAQ is wrong. Bastard swords are by default a one-handed weapons with a special clause that lets you use them 2 handed easier, not a 2 handed weapon that lets you wield it in one hand with added effort. If they want to rewrite the weapon table to reflect their rules change (appearing as a 2 handed martial weapon), that is fine. But as written in the book, that FAQ is wrong.

Jakkedin wrote:


Wow, did this get off track.

Here's my 2 cents and I think it is very simple reasoning:

Proficiency in the earth breaker allows you to wield it 2-handed without penalty and you get to add 1.5 strength modifier to damage. Since the earth breaker is only a 2-handed weapon, you cannot be proficient in using it one-handed. Therefore, if you wish to use it one-handed, you take the penalty of -4 to attack for not being proficient and only get your normal strength tor damage.

That isn't how proficiency works at all. With a few specifically stated exceptions (bastard swords, for example) there is no change in proficiency based on how many hands you hold the weapon in. Proficiency is a simple binary - either yes or no. If you are proficiency with a longsword, you are proficiency with all longswords. Including Small sized ones (wielded one handed as a light weapon) and Large sized ones (which would require 2 hands). You still have the -2 wrong size penalty, but that has nothing to do with proficiency.


They're wrong about the basted sword, but not about the part I bolded.


Of course that FAQ still needs to be fixed.


Oh yes, a core rulebook faq that isn’t even true totally is the end all statement to this.

I’m willing to believe the feat might be wrong, but not if you have to cite factually wrong sources to disprove it.

Right now I think the feat might be wrong, but still, the fact that you have to cite incorrect sources to counter it is making me doubt whether it could be wrong.

z wrote:


"Because leverage doesn't work that way"

“The hell it doesn’t. Less leverage means you have to apply more strength to achieve the same results. Which would be applied in game as a penalty to attack rolls.”


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Reksew_Trebla wrote:

Oh yes, a core rulebook faq that isn’t even true totally is the end all statement to this.

I’m willing to believe the feat might be wrong, but not if you have to cite factually wrong sources to disprove it.

Right now I think the feat might be wrong, but still, the fact that you have to cite incorrect sources to counter it is making me doubt whether it could be wrong.

z wrote:


"Because leverage doesn't work that way"
“The hell it doesn’t. Less leverage means you have to apply more strength to achieve the same results. Which would be applied in game as a penalty to attack rolls.”

One part of the FAQ being wrong doesn't make the entire FAQ wrong. Other FAQ's have also had typos. They just fixed the erroneous part. The rest was still accurate.

If you are the GM feel free to do what you want until the FAQ I'd fixed, but as a player don't be surprised when they don't allow it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
They're wrong about the basted sword, but not about the part I bolded.

mmm gravy

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Reksew_Trebla wrote:

Oh yes, a core rulebook faq that isn’t even true totally is the end all statement to this.

I’m willing to believe the feat might be wrong, but not if you have to cite factually wrong sources to disprove it.

Right now I think the feat might be wrong, but still, the fact that you have to cite incorrect sources to counter it is making me doubt whether it could be wrong.

z wrote:


"Because leverage doesn't work that way"
“The hell it doesn’t. Less leverage means you have to apply more strength to achieve the same results. Which would be applied in game as a penalty to attack rolls.”

So you refuse a FAQ because the wording isn't very precise, but want to find a rule that don't exist because a incorrect piece of text in a splatbook seem to hit to its existence?

It is very simple: There isn't any piece of text giving the ability to use a two handed weapon in one hand unless you have a specific ability to do so.

Penalty isn't only a negative numeric value. Penalty can be "can't be done".


Diego Rossi wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:

Oh yes, a core rulebook faq that isn’t even true totally is the end all statement to this.

I’m willing to believe the feat might be wrong, but not if you have to cite factually wrong sources to disprove it.

Right now I think the feat might be wrong, but still, the fact that you have to cite incorrect sources to counter it is making me doubt whether it could be wrong.

z wrote:


"Because leverage doesn't work that way"
“The hell it doesn’t. Less leverage means you have to apply more strength to achieve the same results. Which would be applied in game as a penalty to attack rolls.”

So you refuse a FAQ because the wording isn't very precise, but want to find a rule that don't exist because a incorrect piece of text in a splatbook seem to hit to its existence?

It is very simple: There isn't any piece of text giving the ability to use a two handed weapon in one hand unless you have a specific ability to do so.

Penalty isn't only a negative numeric value. Penalty can be "can't be done".

No, I refuse to use a FAQ that is flat out wrong. A Bastard Sword has never been a Two-Handed Weapon, even when used as a Martial Weapon. This makes the FAQ wrong. So again, insisting that a factually wrong FAQ is proof that the feat is wrong is actually hurting, not helping, your case.

Also where is your proof the text in the splatbook is wrong? As another pointed out, the normal rules in a feat are changes to the rules, as shown with the Undersized Mount feat.

Also

z wrote:


Penalty isn't only a negative numeric value. Penalty can be "can't be done".

Doesn’t work with

feat wrote:


Normal: An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon, preventing the use of a klar in one hand without imposing penalties for using the earth breaker one-handed.

You can’t recieve penalties for doing something if it isn’t possible to do it in the first place. What you are suggesting would make it read as

wrong wrote:


Normal: An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon, preventing the use of a klar in one hand without imposing the penalty of not being able to use a two-handed weapon one-handed for using the earth breaker one-handed.

You see how that makes no sense? Because your “penalty” can’t apply here, given the way the word “without” confirms that it is possible with the following restriction(s).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you could use a twohanded weapon in one hand there would be rules for it. Since thunder and fang doesn't have text like "You ignore the -4 onehanded penalty" the penalty it does mention would be not being to attack, since you can hold a two handed weapon with a free hand and cast, or the titan mauler's -2 penalty.

If you were homebrewing I'd allow a -6 penalty, -4 because you're untrained, -2 because of the weight. This homebrewed rule would hopefully make classes like the Titan Mauler remain viable while not breaking the game with fighters dual wielding greatswords.


wraithstrike wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:

Oh yes, a core rulebook faq that isn’t even true totally is the end all statement to this.

I’m willing to believe the feat might be wrong, but not if you have to cite factually wrong sources to disprove it.

Right now I think the feat might be wrong, but still, the fact that you have to cite incorrect sources to counter it is making me doubt whether it could be wrong.

z wrote:


"Because leverage doesn't work that way"
“The hell it doesn’t. Less leverage means you have to apply more strength to achieve the same results. Which would be applied in game as a penalty to attack rolls.”

One part of the FAQ being wrong doesn't make the entire FAQ wrong. Other FAQ's have also had typos. They just fixed the erroneous part. The rest was still accurate.

If you are the GM feel free to do what you want until the FAQ I'd fixed, but as a player don't be surprised when they don't allow it.

Here’s the thing though, how do I know the other part of the faq is accurate when they already screwed up completely with the whole point of the main focus of the faq? That makes it extremely untrustworthy to me. I’m not saying it isn’t right. I’m saying I can’t trust that it is right. If you can provide some other more trustworthy source, I’ll accept it, but as it stands, the faq that was provided is hurting, not helping, the argument that you can’t do this, at least for me anyways.

If it helps at all, I have Asperger’s Syndrome, so my way of thinking is sometimes vastly different from a non-Autistic person’s way of thinking.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Reksew Trebla wrote:
I’m not saying it isn’t right. I’m saying I can’t trust that it is right.

But you somehow CAN trust a feat in a splatbook talking about using a klar? AND you can trust it enough to come up with a specific number out of nowhere that it doesn't mention, anywhere, at all?

The rules are not perfect. The rules are not computer code. They are not describing an external reality. They are not going to get every statement correct , much less pre emptively herd off every implications you can make from the statements.

You have to weigh the evidence for and against a position and not pre emptively jump to the conclussion you want based on one piece of evidence and then insist no one tell you that it's wrong. That is a terrible way to make a decision about anything that isn't a logic puzzle.


Reksew_Trebla wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:

Oh yes, a core rulebook faq that isn’t even true totally is the end all statement to this.

I’m willing to believe the feat might be wrong, but not if you have to cite factually wrong sources to disprove it.

Right now I think the feat might be wrong, but still, the fact that you have to cite incorrect sources to counter it is making me doubt whether it could be wrong.

z wrote:


"Because leverage doesn't work that way"
“The hell it doesn’t. Less leverage means you have to apply more strength to achieve the same results. Which would be applied in game as a penalty to attack rolls.”

One part of the FAQ being wrong doesn't make the entire FAQ wrong. Other FAQ's have also had typos. They just fixed the erroneous part. The rest was still accurate.

If you are the GM feel free to do what you want until the FAQ I'd fixed, but as a player don't be surprised when they don't allow it.

Here’s the thing though, how do I know the other part of the faq is accurate when they already screwed up completely with the whole point of the main focus of the faq? That makes it extremely untrustworthy to me. I’m not saying it isn’t right. I’m saying I can’t trust that it is right. If you can provide some other more trustworthy source, I’ll accept it, but as it stands, the faq that was provided is hurting, not helping, the argument that you can’t do this, at least for me anyways.

If it helps at all, I have Asperger’s Syndrome, so my way of thinking is sometimes vastly different from a non-Autistic person’s way of thinking.

What will you accept as proof until the FAQ is fixed?

PS: I know people with Asperger’s, so I understand. I also contacted Mark about the FAQ. Hopefully it doesn't take too long for it to get fixed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With no other examples of 2 handers being one handed, an archtype that's only ability is to allow one to use 2 handers one handed and no penalties of any sort to go by to do it one handed, there simply is no rules system to go by for a throw away line in a feat from a splatbook half a decade old.

Frankly the book is unlikely to receive errata. So that's very much the reason is was never fixed.

Long story short, no evidence to support, counter archetypes that are made solely to do it and no written penalties to impose... I think it's just not got the structure to support your thoughts, Reksew

Shadow Lodge

A two-handed weapon weilded in one hand with no special ability, like Jotungrip, would be a one-handed Imoroved weapon, wouldn't it?

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / What are the penalties for using a two-handed weapon with one hand? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.