FAQ Update - Aargh!

[Humanophile]

My vote goes with Hypersmurf. Not because the sage's interpretation leads to better or worse rules-effects, but because it muddies what was once a perfectly clear issue.

I don't mind the sage using FAQ-as-errata too much; his remark about tower shields "we didn't say that cover needed a standard action, but that's what we meant" sounds about right. But the terms "light weapon", "one-handed weapon", and "two-handed weapon" meant very specific things ruleswise, as did "a one-handed weapon used in two-hands", and his ruling just makes that pointlessly fuzzy.

You want to bypass lance issues? Make a specific rule for them (although I do admit, that just leads to more silliness). You think that one handed weapons wielded in two should be better at disarms? Give a circumstance bonus. A lot easier and more rules-natural than changing its designation, for reasons HS pointed out earlier.

And reclassifying the Dwarven Waraxe and Bastard Sword as two-handed? I thought that (one-handed) (exotic) was pretty clear. The "can be used two-handed as a martial weapon" was kind of funny, but the wording was kind of hard to work around. However, if I could use any other exotic weapon without training (albeit eating a -4 to hit), I don't see why I can't do the same for BS or DW.

 

[Korak]

A Medium two-handed blade has 5 hardness and 10 hit points. A Medium one-handed blade has 5 hardness and 5 hit points.

I'm swinging my longsword in two hands. Someone tries to Sunder it - they roll 11 damage, of which 6 gets past the hardness.

Later, it gets dark, so someone passes me a torch. I have to hold my longsword in one hand. It breaks. Because I took one hand off the hilt.

... see what I mean? Basically anywhere that uses the terms would be... wrong.

Except Disarm, because the new FAQ rules on Disarm would obviously already fit with the new FAQ definitions of One-Handed and Two-Handed.

-Hyp.

/golfclap

 

[Ottergame]

Personally, I LIKE this. A weapon being held in two hands IS a two handed weapon to me.

 

[ZansForCans]

Not at all. It's a one-handed weapon that's too large to wield in one hand without the EWP. With the EWP, it's not too large to wield in one hand. Since it's a one-handed weapon, you can wield it in one hand or two. Without the EWP, you can wield it in one hand or two, except that it's too large to wield in one hand. You take a -4 penalty if you use it in two hands (since you can't wield it in one at all)... unless you have Martial Weapon Proficiency, in which case the -4 is revoked.

You seem to be implying that without EWP or MWP you can indeed wield it one-handed with two hands in an non-proficient manner (taking the -4).

I disagree. You are wielding it two-handed (non-proficiently) in a very similar manner to being at a size differential with a weapon (see below). The wording clearly says two-handed, not with two hands. The lance entry, by contrast, is clearly different, saying that you can wield it with one hand (and not one-handed).

Except it says you can "wield it two-handed", not "as a two-handed weapon".

It's a one-handed weapon that you are wielding two-handed. It's not changing designation to "two-handed weapon" (the defined term) - in this case, "two-handed" is an adverbial clause.

It's tempting to make weapon encumbrance a static element of the weapon. I agree that somewhere in the rules someone decided that some facet of this quality should be the case, as is evidenced by the hardness/hp rules you pointed out above. However, in the very section that defines the encumbrance rules:

Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. ...

and then mere sentences later,

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.

Weapon encumbrance is primarily intended to be a relative term between the weapon and the wielder. The fact that hardness/hp are linked by that table does not imply that the terms are static to a weapon. By your own example in this thread, a Large creature wielding a Medium greatsword is using a one-handed weapon and does not get the +4 Disarm bonus. The fact that it's one-handed for the Large creature doesn't change the weapon's material qualities.

Let's pull your scenario out above about getting handed a torch, which is right in pointing out that the inherent weapon quality doesn't change. If this encumbrance quality is singular and static, you (being Medium) instead hand a Medium greatsword to your ogre sidekick, and it suddenly breaks since the encumbrance has been altered and the hardness/hp table says it has suddenly become weaker. Obviously, although clearly not stated in the rules, there is a 'default' encumbrance class that the weapon's material qualities are based on, namely the one it appears under in the main weapons table. But this classification can change relative to the wielder for purposes of combat.

In the same vein, there is nothing static preventing the bastard sword from sloshing around from one-handed to two-handed encumbrance based on training through MWP. I wouldn't fault a ruling that it's meant to be read as "with two hands", but I personally think the "two-handed" wording is intentional.

But I want to reiterate at this point that I completely agree that wielding a two-handed weapon and a one-handed weapon with two hands are completely separate. Again, it's not how the weapon is being used (implied by the Sage's answer to one question), but how much effort it takes (clearly stated in the rules), a condition that can be modified by the weapon's and your size, and (by my reading) occasionally by weapon proficiency for specific weapons.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You seem to be implying that without EWP or MWP you can indeed wield it one-handed with two hands in an non-proficient manner (taking the -4).

I'd reword that - "wield it one-handed with two hands" doesn't make sense. "Wield it (as a one-handed weapon) with two hands" by preference, or "Wield it (as a one-handed weapon) two-handed", meaning the same thing, though that one bears the unfortunate similarity to the defined term "two-handed weapon" and can (and does) lead to confusion.

But yes, that's what I'm saying. It's a one-handed weapon; it's too large to wield with one hand unless you have the EWP. If you have no proficiency, you can wield it as you'd wield any other one-handed weapon you weren't proficient in - a -4 penalty - with the caveat that wielding it in one hand is forbidden.

The wording clearly says two-handed, not with two hands.

Yup, but it doesn't say "two-handed weapon".

By your own example in this thread, a Large creature wielding a Medium greatsword is using a one-handed weapon and does not get the +4 Disarm bonus. The fact that it's one-handed for the Large creature doesn't change the weapon's material qualities.

That's right.

Let's take a human with a longsword as our control example in an opposed Disarm check.

Opponent A1: Human with Medium longsword. One-handed weapon: no bonus; no size difference: no bonus. Relative bonus in opposed check: +0.
Opponent A2: Ogre with Medium longsword. Light weapon: -4 penalty. One size larger than opponent: +4 bonus. Relative bonus in opposed check: +0.

It doesn't matter who's holding the longsword: against our control opponent, the relative bonus is the same.

Opponent A1: Human with Medium greatsword. Two-handed weapon: +4 bonus; no size difference: no bonus. Relative bonus in opposed check: +4.
Opponent A2: Ogre with Medium greatsword. One-handed weapon: no penalty. One size larger than opponent: +4 bonus. Relative bonus in opposed check: +4.

It doesn't matter who's holding the greatsword: against our control opponent, the relative bonus is the same.

If this encumbrance quality is singular and static, you (being Medium) instead hand a Medium greatsword to your ogre sidekick, and it suddenly breaks since the encumbrance has been altered and the hardness/hp table says it has suddenly become weaker.

Well, no - firstly because it's considered a Large one-handed weapon, which has twice as many hitpoints as a Medium one-handed weapon.

But it's only being treated as a Large one-handed weapon; it's definitely still a Medium two-handed weapon, because the ogre is taking a -2 penalty for inappropriate size. If it were actually a Large weapon, he wouldn't be taking that penalty.

So yes, under the Rules as Written, there is a static component. It's always a Medium two-handed weapon, even if it's being used as an inappropriately-sized Large one-handed weapon or an inappropriately-sized Huge light weapon.

Under the FAQ ruling, "one-handed weapon" and "two-handed weapon" only exist on the tables "as a matter of convenience" (!?) (and apparently sometimes don't apply even then, like the bastard sword or waraxe), because they really mean "how many hands you're using to hold the weapon".

-Hyp.

 

[ZansForCans]

That's right.

Let's take a human with a longsword as our control example in an opposed Disarm check. ...

Agreed. The mechanic is well-balanced, which is the point I was trying to make by referring to your previous example. The encumbrance category is altered when the size differs.

Well, no - firstly because it's considered a Large one-handed weapon, which has twice as many hitpoints as a Medium one-handed weapon.

But it's only being treated as a Large one-handed weapon; it's definitely still a Medium two-handed weapon, because the ogre is taking a -2 penalty for inappropriate size. If it were actually a Large weapon, he wouldn't be taking that penalty.

As you say, only the encumbrance category is altered. There is no mention that the size is considered to be or treated as changed. If you want to invoke a harness/hp change, it would come from only its designation change, not its size. But, it was just a silly example to point out the rest below...

So yes, under the Rules as Written, there is a static component. It's always a Medium two-handed weapon, even if it's being used as an inappropriately-sized Large one-handed weapon or an inappropriately-sized Huge light weapon.

No, actually under the RAW, that component of the weapon is "altered". If the designation "would change" to something outside of one of the three designations, it can't be wielded. There is no "treated as" or "considered" language in that section. Proper wording is that the ogre, as a Large creature, is using the Medium greatsword as a one-handed weapon. The greatsword has no default encumbrance properties that have anything to do with its usage in combat (material properties, see below).

The designation is not static in its primary usage for combat bonus (attack, Str bonus to damage, off-hand penalties, etc.), handedness, and weapon usage (e.g. only light weapons can be used in a grapple).

Nevertheless, unless you want your hardness/hp of a weapon changing with the wielder, there is a default designation for the weapon that is linked to it's material properties. These are laid out in the weapons table and happen to match the typical encumbrance designation for the weapon when wielded by the appropriately sized creature. This is the only part that is static.

Under the FAQ ruling, "one-handed weapon" and "two-handed weapon" only exist on the tables "as a matter of convenience" (!?) (and apparently sometimes don't apply even then, like the bastard sword or waraxe), because they really mean "how many hands you're using to hold the weapon".

And like you, I disagree with that implication. They are listed as a convenience only in the sense that they are typically the default for the correctly sized creature (which I'd contend is more than just a convenience). But, that designation has nothing to do with how many hands are being used--only on "how much effort" they take to wield.