This question was asked at another forum, and I couldn't find any existing discussion, so here goes. Feel free to link to existing threads if I am just bad at the Internet.
Certain feats require you to wield a two-handed weapon. Example: Brutish Shove.
Other feats require you to wield your weapon in two hands. Example: Brutal Finish.
Now then, is there a difference and if so, is this difference intentional?
You might think that any weapon you wield in two hands count as a two-handed weapon, but it is not that clear-cut. The opposite is true, but that doesn't mean it goes both ways.
That is, there is rules language for two-handed weapons --> weapons wielded in two hands:
"some abilities require you to wield a weapon in two hands. You meet this requirement while holding the weapon in two hands, even if it doesn’t require two hands or have the two-hand trait." (actual rule)
but not the reverse, i.e. there is no rule that says something like:
"a weapon counts as a two-handed weapon when you hold it in two hands" (hypothetical rule)
So lets have some specific questions:
Q1) Can you use a club or a bastard sword with Brutish Shove?
Q2) Can you use a club or greatsword with Brutal Finish?
For Q1 I think the RAW answer is "no", but here I am asking you.
For Q2 I hope we all agree the answer is "yes".
Best regards,
Zapp
PS. The Two-hand weapon trait doesn't make the weapon two-handed. It only allows you to wield it with two hands. And a Bastard Sword remains a Hands: 1 weapon.
There is very little difference in the 2 terms. It's much like melee weapon with thrown being treated as a ranged weapon when thrown: the only difference between a bow and a dagger is the dagger has a melee option in addition to it's range weapon ability. The two-hand trait's only difference from a two-handed weapon is trait allows one handed use.
IMO:
So Can you use a club or a bastard sword with Brutish Shove? Yes to bastard sword if you're using the two hand trait, no to the club. It's asking for a weapon that requires using 2 hands, which the trait works for because using the trait requires 2 hands.
So Can you use a club or greatsword with Brutal Finish? Yes to both because of the rule you quoted: "even doesn’t require two hands or have the two-hand trait": "require you to wield your weapon in two hands" specifically allows for using two hands on weapons that do not benefit from it.
graystone wrote: There is very little difference in the 2 terms. It's much like melee weapon with thrown being treated as a ranged weapon when thrown: the only difference between a bow and a dagger is the dagger has a melee option in addition to it's range weapon ability. The two-hand trait's only difference from a two-handed weapon is trait allows one handed use. Thanks, but I'm afraid I don't see the ruleslawyery support for this.
The feats use different phrasings; if this wasn't intended to mean something they could (and should) have used identical language. And I find the comparison halting - didn't Paizo have to issue specific errata to this exact issue?
Let's hope for more point of views here.
Zapp wrote: The feats use different phrasings Yep, one allows you to use any weapon in 2 hands and the other needs a weapon used in a way that requires 2 hands. "some abilities require you to wield a weapon in two hands. You meet this requirement while holding the weapon in two hands, even if it doesn’t require two hands or have the two-hand trait" is where the difference is: it allows [even if it doesn’t require two hands or have the two-hand trait] while a two handed weapon DOES "require two hands or have the two-hand trait".
Zapp wrote: Certain feats require you to wield a two-handed weapon. Example: Brutish Shove.
Other feats require you to wield your weapon in two hands. Example: Brutal Finish.
Now then, is there a difference and if so, is this difference intentional?
The question you are asking is whether the "Two-Hand" trait
https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=198
...allows a weapon to also qualify as a two-handed weapon when wielded with two hands. The rules don't answer that question directly. It's reasonable to rule that since using two-hands "changes" the weapons characteristics versus a weapon that doesn't have the trait, a bastard sword should count as a two-handed weapon when gripped with two hands and work with Brutish Shove, where as a club would not.
But a formal/conservative reading is the one you put forward where the Two-Hand trait is not intended to satisfy the two-handed weapon requirement and is simply a mechanic to increase damage, and nothing else.
I would rule any weapon with the two-handed trait that is used with two hands, satisfies the requirement as that it aligns with the narrative of the concepts. The weapon is designed so that when used with two hands, it has properties that only exist beause it is now a two handed weapon. Essentially an "I think, therefore I am" argument for two handedness.
Thank you.
It seems this has not been discussed previously, then? Nor has it been shown to the Paizo devs?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Zapp wrote: Thank you.
It seems this has not been discussed previously, then? Nor has it been shown to the Paizo devs?
Found Mark's posts eventually.
Mark Seifter wrote: Two-handed weapon vs weapon in two hands was very confusing in PF1 (I still think one of the FAQs about that in general contradicts another FAQ about lances); we don't have both of those in PF2. If you are using it two hands, you are using it in two hands. If you are using it in one hand, you are using it in one hand. That is the thing we will check. graystone wrote: I'm curious why brutal shove requires a two handed weapon then. Wouldn't requiring "you are wielding a weapon in two hands" instead help prevent confusion, especially from returning PF1 players? Mark Seifter wrote: In the equipment chapter, we make it clear that requirements like that work with any such weapon in two hands, whether it requires two hands like a greatsword, has the two-hand trait like a bastard sword, or you just did it for fun with a longsword or the like. It sure would be nice if there was an actual FAQ [not a FAQ area with only errata] area for things like this. :P
At first I would have ruled that a 2-handed melee weapon was one with Hands 2 in its statistics. Now after reading the above posts and the equipment part about using 2 hands on a melee weapon as well as Brutish Shove text, I agree that it is meant to apply to any melee weapon held with 2 hands.
I hope in the future feats' description will completely avoid the two-handed weapon wording.
Mark Seifter wrote: In the equipment chapter, we make it clear that requirements like that work with any such weapon in two hands, whether it requires two hands like a greatsword, has the two-hand trait like a bastard sword, or you just did it for fun with a longsword or the like. Except it's not clear.
Brutish Shove requires "a two handed weapon," while Brutal Finish requires that you are wielding a melee weapon with two hands."
Brutual Finish wrote: Your final blow can make an impact even if it rebounds off a foe’s defenses. Make a Strike with the required weapon. There's nothing about this attack that makes me think an arrow gripped with two hands wouldn't work.
Brutish Shove wrote: Throwing your weight behind your attack, you hit your opponent hard enough to make it stumble back. Make a Strike with a two-handed melee weapon I don't see how that makes any sense if you were wielding an arrow with two hands.
Quote: Mark Seifter wrote:
In the equipment chapter, we make it clear that requirements like that work with any such weapon in two hands, whether it requires two hands like a greatsword, has the two-hand trait like a bastard sword, or you just did it for fun with a longsword or the like.
Mark's statement seems like it's taken out of context. I believe that when he says, "like that," he's referfing to the "wielding a weapon in two hand" requirement and not the "Two handed weapon requirement."
This is what the equipment section says.
Hands wrote: In addition, some abilities require you to wield a weapon in two hands. You meet this requirement while holding the weapon in two hands, even if it doesn’t require two hands or have the two-hand trait. Mark seems to be talking about a requirement to "wield it in two hands." The equipment section says that if you have that requirement, you satisify it by wielding any weapon in two hands.
Brutish Shove does not have that requirement. It requires a two-handed weapon. The equipment section does not say that any weapon wielded with two hands qualifies as a two handed weapon. It says that wielding any weapon in two hands satisfies the requirement of wielding a weapon in two hands, and that it doesn't have to be a weapon requiring two hands.
It wasn't taken out of context: it was originally nested quotes [he posted, I replied and he replied to that]: I pulled them out because it wasn't formatting right on my screen.
link to post
That's doubly disappointing then - even though they apparently *knew* there was an issue in PF1, they *still* messed it up in PF2... and they do not even seem aware they have a mess to clean up?
But thanks to you Graystone. At least I now know what is intended.
I followed your link, Gray. I now realize you had this exact concern two years ago. Somehow google didn't find it.
Shame you didn't press Mark on the issue (though I completely understand you could not given the circumstances, as it was before release and without access to the full books myself I would totally do what you did, that is trusting the dev at face value especially since he came across as having full control of the situation).
Just a shame to realize he did not, and that there simply is no explanation for a) half the feats using one phrasing, the other half using another phrasing and b) that this has still not been addressed/errataed. It's almost as if he believes the two hand trait does say what he says it does (when in actual fact it does not).
Again thanks for a very relevant and thorough reply.
graystone wrote: It wasn't taken out of context: it was originally nested quotes [he posted, I replied and he replied to that]: I pulled them out because it wasn't formatting right on my screen.
link to post
Marks' statement isn't entirely clear. You asked about two different type of requirements in the question he quotes. But based on his response, I read it as he was only answering the second question you asked:
graystone wrote: Wouldn't requiring "you are wielding a weapon in two hands" instead help prevent confusion, especially from returning PF1 players? Mark's response makes perfect sense if we read it as only being direct at answerng that question. He's saying PF2 eliminated the confusion on "wield a weapon in two hands" because the equipment section says any weapon you wield in two hands counts as wielding a weapon in two hands, regardless of how many hands you need to wield it. It would appear that he's not saying anything about the "using a two handed weapon" requirement and he's not addressing your actual question. And as such, he's implicitly telling us that the "two handed weapon" is a different requirement. I could be wrong, but his response doesn't make sense otherwise.
So yes, taking his statement as applying to Zapp's question seems to be taking it out of context because as I read it, he was not answering Zapp's (your actual question).
To put it another way, I read Mark's response as, "No, there is no confusion that needs to be prevented between the two requirements because the equipment rules explicitly say how you can satisfy the latter, so we don't need to change the former (two handed weapon)."
Are you seriously throwing a fit trying to say that after your questions were answered in the affirmative, that it actually isn't? How many ways do you think there are to read "weapons held in two hands are two-handed"? Jesus Christ.
N N 959 wrote: To put it another way, I read Mark's response as, "No, there is no confusion that needs to be prevented between the two requirements because the equipment rules explicitly say how you can satisfy the latter, so we don't need to change the former (two handed weapon)." Zapp's question was "It seems this has not been discussed previously, then? Nor has it been shown to the Paizo devs?". I'm not sure how Mark's quotes don't answer that question that I even quoted in my reply. If I had been directly commenting in the question in the first post, I would have replied to that and quoted it.
Zapps questions was this
Quote: Now then, is there a difference and if so, is this difference intentional? This is essentially the same question you asked Mark. But as I read it, he doesn't really answer that question directly.
Zapp wrote: That's doubly disappointing then - even though they apparently *knew* there was an issue in PF1, they *still* messed it up in PF2... and they do not even seem aware they have a mess to clean up?
But thanks to you Graystone. At least I now know what is intended.
That's one way to read it. Another is that PF2 did fix it:
two handed <> wielding in two hands.
Again, if we read Mark as simply addressing the second part of graystone's question, then he is not claiming they are one and the same, he's pointing out that there is no confusion the two and in fulfilling the later.
N N 959 wrote: Zapps questions was this
Quote: Now then, is there a difference and if so, is this difference intentional?
No it wasn't. Maybe you should look at my post again: I LITERALLY quoted the question I was replying to and "Now then, is there a difference and if so, is this difference intentional?" wasn't it.
Zapp wrote: Thank you.
It seems this has not been discussed previously, then? Nor has it been shown to the Paizo devs?
THIS is what I quoted and replied to. THIS is what I posted Mark's quotes about. THIS question. So Mark's comments where only out of context if you took my entire post totally out of context. If you bothered to read the entire post, including Zapp's quote, I can't see how you missed what the actual, in context, question was. :P
Zapp is seeking answer to a question about the same thing you asked Mark. In order to get an answer, he asks if anyone has asked the question already. The point of his thread is not simply find if anyone else asked the questions. He's asking if someone asked the questions, so he can get an answer to the questions.
graystone wrote: THIS is what I posted Mark's quotes about. That's right, and since Mark did not answer the question you and Zapp asked, Mark's quote is taken out of context as an answer to Zapp's question. Mark answered a question you asked but Zapp did not.
Posting Mark's entire response when it doesn't address Zapp's question is taking Mark's post out of context because Mark was answering a different question.
Granted, it looks like Mark's response might be an answer, but as I read it, he did not actually answer that question, he answered a different one.
Zapp wrote: It seems this has not been discussed previously, then? Nor has it been shown to the Paizo devs? If my reading of Mark's response is accurate, the question was "shown," but not "discussed."
I kind of love this discussion. Well-informed, rational, logical, where emotions don't take over (with a couple of easily ignored exceptions).
As you hopefully have seen, N N, we share the notion something's hanging here. Even clear heads have concluded there's no difference, even though there is a case to be made the difference is indeed there. It's just that in cases as subtle as this, where the probability for misinterpretation is imminent, direct clarification would have gone a looong way.
Either add a rule to the effect of "a weapon counts as a two-handed weapon when you hold it in two hands"
Or clarify that "a weapon does not count as two-handed just because it has the two hand trait or you hold it in two hands"
---
But I want to credit Graystone for pivoting towards presenting the situation as-is.
I don't think there's much point in discussing it any further. At this point it does seem like Paizo thinks there is no issue left unresolved, making it pointless to expect any update or errata to be forthcoming.
Thanks.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think people are missing the most important part of Mark's answer (irrelevant parenthetical removed for clarity):
Mark wrote: Two-handed weapon vs weapon in two hands was very confusing in PF1; we don't have both of those in PF2. I think he is in fact saying that two-handed weapon=weapon in two hands, cause "we don't have both of those [as separate categories] in PF2."
The cost of wielding a weapon, any weapon, in two hands is that you don't have a hand free, and there is action economy in the way of getting anything else into that hand. If you want to use a feat that's balanced for 2h-strength weapons with a dagger... go ahead.
Edit: Additionally, I just noticed that when he says
Mark wrote: we make it clear that requirements like that work with any such weapon in two hands The "like that" is specifically a response to Gray's question about the requirements of Brutish Shove, which are... a Two-Handed weapon. It makes little sense to assume that he was responding to Gray's second, hypothetical question, and his answer makes perfect sense if you assume that his first response was saying that there is no distinction.
Zapp wrote: Even clear heads have concluded there's no difference, even though there is a case to be made the difference is indeed there. It's just that in cases as subtle as this, where the probability for misinterpretation is imminent, direct clarification would have gone a looong way. On the contrary, there is a substantive and discernible difference. It is unequivocal that the subset of weapons that must be wielded with two hands is smaller than the subset of weapons that can be wielded in two hands. The first is a subset of the second.
In addition, the rules specifically call out this difference as you identified in Brutish Shove and Brutal Finish.
Sans Mark's statement about there not being two different requirements (when there clearly are), the only thing that needs answering is weapons that have the TWO-HAND trait and where they fall.
theservantsllcleanitup wrote: I think people are missing the most important part of Mark's answer (irrelevant parenthetical removed for clarity): No, that was the first thing I discussed after graystone's post. Again, it is unequivocal that rules identify two distinct requirements.
Mark wrote: Two-handed weapon vs weapon in two hands was very confusing in PF1; we don't have both of those in PF2. Except the rules clearly and unequivocally do have both of those. So either:
a) Mark is confused, forgot, misinformed about the existence of the two different requirements at that stage of the development i.e. maybe he didn't know they were using both requirements
b) Paizo inexplicably used two differently worded requirements to mean the exact same thing.
Quote: I think he is in fact saying that two-handed weapon=weapon in two hands, cause "we don't have both of those [as separate categories] in PF2." That would be nonsensical because the rules do have two separate requirements and the requirements identify different subset of weapons. And this is precisely why I said Mark's answer isn't entirely clear.
Quote: The cost of wielding a weapon, any weapon, in two hands is that you don't have a hand free, and there is action economy in the way of getting anything else into that hand. If you want to use a feat that's balanced for 2h-strength weapons with a dagger... go ahead. Yes, that works for the requirement of "wielding a weapon with two hands." But requiring a two-handed weapon would be a smaller subset and have additional opportunity costs, but still allow a player to take advantage of the "wielded with two hands" requirement.
Quote: The "like that" is specifically a response to Gray's question about the requirements of Brutish Shove, which are... a Two-Handed weapon. It makes little sense to assume that he was responding to Gray's second, hypothetical question, and his answer makes perfect sense if you assume that his first response was saying that there is no distinction. On the contrary, the opposite is true. Because he specifically discusses the rule in the equipment section that says what he says and only applies to wielding a weapon in two hands. The rule never says a weapon wielded in two hands counts as a two handed weapon. Nor does it imply that. It says you can satisfy the "wield a weapon in two hand" by doing so, regardless of how many hands you need to wield the weapon.
The other hurdle for your interpretation is that Mark tells us that PF2 doesn't have the Two-Handed weapon requirement. So why would he be discussing a rule he apparently thinks doesn't exist?
I think what everyone here is failing to recognize is that the rule Mark quotes is what bolsters the notion that two-handed <> from wielding with two hands. It is precisely the clarification of being able to satisfy a "wielding in two hands" requirement regardless of the hands required, which gives meaningful distinction between having a two-handed weapon. Without that clarification, you could only satisfy the requirement with a two handed weapon. With that clarification, more weapons can use Brutal Finish, but Brutish Shove is a smaller group. And that seems entirely consistent with PF2 and it's smaller boxes
Again, this is muddied by Mark's opening statements which says something does not exist which clearly exists in the written rules. And as we learned from PF1, the rules mean what they say. It is unlikely that Paizo would use two different wordings that mean the same thing, when they technically don't.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I suppose another reading is that Paizo meant to have only the weilding in two hands requirement and the two hands is an error.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
