FAQ Update - Aargh!

[Hypersmurf]

Thus, taking the literal interpretation of the phrase "two-handed" (which I do) as referring only to the weapon encumbrance class, when you have MWP (bastard sword) or have a class that includes martial proficiencies, you can wield the bastard sword two-handed--not one-handed with two hands.

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.

Similarly, if you have EWP (bastard sword) and do not have martial proficiency with the weapon (say a Cleric with only the EWP (bs) feat), you can not wield it two-handed.

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, yoou 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.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm thankful none of my players read the FAQ. I get to arbitrate when and if any of this ever comes up without rules-lawyers arguing across the table.

Well, that's what this place is for. So we can have all the arguments before we get anywhere near the table.

I was considering running a Trip Monkey in the 3.5 game we've just started (ended up not doing so - the party was melee-heavy already). I made sure to bring up all the prone debates with the DM well in advance of campaign start. There's no point waiting until the first combat and then springing on the DM, cold, "Okay, so when he goes to stand up, can I trip him again with the AoO?"

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Probably that suddenly if you take Monkey Grip, your weapon loses its +4 disarm bonus under your interpretation. To me that's a pretty strong indication that the FAQ answer is the right ruling.

A feat in a splatbook that modifies the way a weapon is used having an effect on its Disarm modifier isn't unreasonable, though.

For the FAQ ruling to be accurate would require rewriting pretty much any place in the Core Rules where weapon sizes or designations are referred to.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

Wouldn't it just require that teh reader consider the terms "a weapon wielded in two hands" and "a two-handed weapon" to be synonymous? I don't see a need to rewrite huge chunks of the core rules when a simple change of perspective will work.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Wouldn't it just require that teh reader consider the terms "a weapon wielded in two hands" and "a two-handed weapon" to be synonymous? I don't see a need to rewrite huge chunks of the core rules when a simple change of perspective will work.

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.

-----

The table of weapons, with subheadings "Light weapons", "One-Handed weapons", and "Two-Handed weapons" would have to be relabelled "Light weapons", "Weapons that can be wielded in one or two hands", and "Weapons that can only be wielded in two hands". These same headings would also have to be applied to the table of hardnesses and hit points.

The definitions of One-Handed and Two-Handed weapons would have to be rewritten to describe "Any weapon (apart from a light weapon) wielded in one hand" and "Any weapon (apart from a light weapon) wielded in two hands". Obviously, the current descriptions wouldn't make any sense - a two-handed weapon (like a longsword being wielded in two hands, say) requires two hands to use effectively... unless you use it in one hand, in which case it can be used effectively, except it's a one-handed weapon now... unless it's too big to be used in one hand, in which case it can't be a one-handed weapon anyway...

Power Attack would have to be altered, since "a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands" is now redundant.

... 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.

 

[James McMurray]

Sorry, I forgot your lack of common sense and utter slavery to the written word when I made that statement...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Sorry, I forgot your lack of common sense and utter slavery to the written word when I made that statement...

'sokay. I'm sure you'll remember next time.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

I'm with 'smurf-boy on this one.

I hate it when they use the FAQ to change the rules and terminology - especially when they don't say that's what they are doing.

 

[James McMurray]

Don't get me wrong, it should definitely have been an erratta instead of a FAQ answer, but the rules presented by the FAQ make sense, and are better (IMO) than the core rules as written.

 

[The Little Raven]

I like the new weapon rules, but I can see some problems with them, especially with this new FAQ ruling. I devised a simple house rule immediately for it.

Light weapons: Light weapons can be wielded in one or two hands. Characters wielding a ight weapon in one hand suffer a -4 penalty to disarm checks. Characters wielding a light weapon in two hands do not suffer this penalty.

One-handed weapons: One-handed weapons can be wielded in one or two hands. Characters wielding a one-handed weapon in two hands gain a +4 circumstance bonus to disarm checks.

Two-handed weapons: Two-handed weapons can be wielded in two hands only. Characters wielding a two-handed weapon gain a +4 circumstance bonus to disarm checks.