If a basic Lightsaber has the Extended Hilt attachment, which of the following is true:

1) The lightsaber gains all of the benefits of the extended hilt and remains a one-handed weapon.

2) The lightsaber gains all of the benefits of the extended hilt but becomes a two-handed weapon.

3) The lightsaber remains a one-handed weapon, but it gains the benefits of the extended hilt only when used as a two-handed weapon.

I'm asking because an Armorer is looking at going Lightsaber (basic) and Cortosis Shield. The player is wondering if he can add the Extended Hilt for greater hitting power while still benefiting from the shield. Since someone will no doubt ask, the character has only two arms/hands.

I believe, technically speaking, #1 is the correct understanding.

Personally, this is one of the reasons why I'm not too thrilled with the attachment as it is. Most attachments, except for the simplest, usually have some kind of trade off aside from using hard points -- reduced range, automatic threat, increased encumbrance, situational use, etc. -- but the extended hilt is just several nice bonuses without requirements.

Since the fluff text of the Extended Hilt attachment specifically calls out that it's to be used with a two-handed grip, I'd rule that it's #2.

I'm actually partial to option 3, where it's still a one-handed weapon, but you need two hands to get the benefits of the extended hilt

So far that's one vote for each of the three options. That narrows it down...

Since a Lightsaber is a massless blade I would argue #3 because the saber won't get so heavy it's unwieldy in one hand but the only benefit of having a longer hilt is too give you more leverage so you can provide more power to your swings only when you have it held in two hands. The only two species I'd let use the bonuses in one hand are a Wookiee and a Trandoshan since they are both around the same size and the one Wookiee Jedi used an extended hilt to great effect one handed.

Keep in mind, my vote isn't for what I think is RAW, it's for which one would see use at my table.

I think options 1 and 2 are more RAW than option 3, with option 1 just edging out the lead. But as my signature attests, I always assume the narrative option is better than the RAW option.

I think this is more of a physics question so that why I choose three cause it's what makes sense with science and it's also what I would rule it at my table.

I have to agree with option 3: if your wielding it one handed it's standard, if your putting both hands onto it, it's both. It makes narrative sense because the extra grip is reduced when using one hand rather then intended.

I vote 2, with a willingness to give 3 a chance if the player agrees not to be a dingus about it.

I would go 3. Which then raises the question of them asking to strap the shield to their arm so they can keep the second hand free to (awkwardly) be able to use both hands on the sabre. If they wanted to strap the shield to their arm to get the benefit of both then I would consider adding a setback to all their check as well.

I vote 3

Per RAW, it'd probably be Option #1, since the Base Modifications section doesn't mention that the lightsaber now becomes a two-handed weapon by default.

Besides, technically one could say that lightsabers are two-handed weapons almost by default, given how very rarely we see a wielder attack with just a one-handed grip.

Personally, I'd lean towards Option #2 at my table, simply as it makes sense that with such an elongated handle (I visual it as taking a basic hilt and making it the size of a Maul's saber-staff in TPM) that you'd need two hands to get the benefit of the extra leverage that having super-sized your lightsaber hilt would provide. If the PC wanted to use only a single hand, at that point I'd probably assign a setback die to their combat check; after all, the PC did pay for the attachment (both credits and hard points) so they should still benefit from it no matter what kind of grip they've got on their hilt.

I just don't think this game has that kind of granularity. Largely because it is heroic. rifles do not even say they are 2 handed. But for the most part they are. I think this is the realm of set back dice as a situational modifier.

Side note to Daeglan: Rifles are two-handed as they use the Ranged (Heavy) skill, it's called out in the skill description. Most melee weapons that require two hands are described as such, since the Melee skill will cover both one-handed and two-handed weapons. Kind of like the Lighsaber skill.

As for the topic of the thread:

Personally I'd suggest option 3 as a player and to my players. It adds flair and style and like that. It could be a really fun move - start with the shield/lightsaber combo, then suddenly drop the shield and go two-handed saber madness.

Option 1 is probably RAW, but perhaps not the intention? I don't know.

Given that Lightsabers have no weight on their blade, it could just as easily be used as 1 handed weapon, even with the extended grip. So use it as situation requires.

Maybe IF you want to add rules to it. Make it so that it can be used as one or two handed weapons, BUT you lose the benefits when using it on one hand. AS your option 3 suggests, I think it's a smart way to go about it.

Actually I could see the ruling for 1: simply because the broader group allows one to grip it from a multitude of angles to artificially extend or retract the blade. Thus carrying more weight then standard

As I said, I'm pretty sure option 1 is the RAW, just from the wording of the attachment. Option 3 is just the one that I would rule at my table.

If you read the "fluff text" it says that the extended hilt is specifically designed to allow for a two-handed grip in order to get more leverage , and thus extra damage. Thus, based upon the RAW, #3 is the correct answer. The weapon can be used 1 handed with no benefit, but when used two-handed, gains the added damage from the increased leverage from using two hands with a wider spacing between the hands,much like when using a katana two-handed vs one-handed.

If you read the "fluff text" it says that the extended hilt is specifically designed to allow for a two-handed grip in order to get more leverage , and thus extra damage. Thus, based upon the RAW, #3 is the correct answer. The weapon can be used 1 handed with no benefit, but when used two-handed, gains the added damage from the increased leverage from using two hands with a wider spacing between the hands,much like when using a katana two-handed vs one-handed.

Problem is that the devs have noted in the past the fluff text doesn't always reflect game rules. There's been gear in the past that has the fluff text say one thing, but the rules for said piece of gear don't reflect that text, to which the devs replied when asked that "fluff text was just fluff text" and shouldn't be taken too literally.

If you read the "fluff text" it says that the extended hilt is specifically designed to allow for a two-handed grip in order to get more leverage , and thus extra damage. Thus, based upon the RAW, #3 is the correct answer. The weapon can be used 1 handed with no benefit, but when used two-handed, gains the added damage from the increased leverage from using two hands with a wider spacing between the hands,much like when using a katana two-handed vs one-handed.

Problem is that the devs have noted in the past the fluff text doesn't always reflect game rules. There's been gear in the past that has the fluff text say one thing, but the rules for said piece of gear don't reflect that text, to which the devs replied when asked that "fluff text was just fluff text" and shouldn't be taken too literally.

Maybe not, but in this case it does match up with the intent of the mod. especially since that's exactly how a real extended hilt works.

#2 at our table.

OP, you should do whatever it is that you think is best for your table/game, as GM.

If you don't feel, or aren't concerned about, such an interpretation as #1 resulting in power-creep, than by all means let it be so.

And if you feel it adds value to your game to create rules like #3 than let that be so.

If you're of the mind that Lightsabers don't need any extra special consideration for power boosts, why consider anything but 2?

There are plenty of places where actual rules are found in the "fluff" text. Off the top of my head, examples would be nearly every single weapon attachment, and the Heavy Blaster Pistol. If you flat-out ignore the text preceding the "base modifiers," you will often miss important stuff. It takes some experience to discern between what's just fluff and what isn't. And every table is gonna have their own take.

That said, it would seem that the two-handed property is an actual rule, BUT one that isn't for everyone: "Force users of unusual height or build" apparently use the extended hilt simply to fit their hands better.

This is just my take after reading the description.

-

Happy, I'd rule that a lightsaber with an extended hilt becomes a two-handed weapon. And if they wanted to use it with one hand, then just add a Setback die. KISS.

...unless your PC in question is "unusually large." Then, I'd say one-handed is okay.

I'd go with option three. They can use it one handed and with a shield but if they want the benefits they need to use it two handed. When they suggest strapping the shield to their arm I would allow that but then rule that they can't properly use the shield for it's benefit so long as you're fighting with both hands on your lightsabre.

I'd go with option three. They can use it one handed and with a shield but if they want the benefits they need to use it two handed. When they suggest strapping the shield to their arm I would allow that but then rule that they can't properly use the shield for it's benefit so long as you're fighting with both hands on your lightsabre.

I think I'm going to go with #3. That way it offers the "bastard sword" option (old school version). I won't allow arm manipulating the shield to be usable for another weapon.