So, ignoring CS on versatile weapons

218 posts / 0 new
Last post
I can't believe the stupidity behind the ruling of versatile weapons only counting as 1 handed weapons.  

It very clearly goes against both common sense and the designer's intent, and doesn't just penalize but shuts small characters out of certain builds completely.

from the PH, pg 215:
 "Other one-handed weapons are large enough that you can keep a good grip on them with two hands and deal extra damage by using them as two-handed weapons".

It really undermines the credibility of the Customer Service department  in my PoV, and I likely won't pay any attention to their answers in the future.  

I also have a similar issue with the ruling on Commander's Strike, where the melee weapon tag is clearly meant for the ally and not the warlord.  
It very clearly goes against both common sense and the designer's intent, and doesn't just penalize but shuts small characters out of certain builds completely.


I also have a similar issue with the ruling on Commander's Strike, where the melee weapon tag is clearly meant for the ally and not the warlord.  



For 2 handed weapons on small characters I would argue that you're free to house-rule it as such. Probably won't break the game. The game's rules serve as an outline to do with as you wish.

For the Commander's Strike, I think that the flavor text plays into people's interpretation here a lot. I envision the Warlord as using his own weapon to open up an opportunity for his ally to strike, thereby granting him the additional damage. Just shouting, "Hit him!" doesn't seem quite as reasonable, like the barbarian needs additional instructions when it comes to hitting things, vis a vis, doing it.
I am with you 100% on versatile weapons, and disagree 100% on commander's strike, which means I must rate this post at 0%.
I am with you 100% on versatile weapons, and disagree 100% on commander's strike, which means I must rate this post at 0%.


Resistances and vulnerabilities don't cancel: the post is both +100% and -100%. 
.

It really undermines the credibility of the Customer Service department  in my PoV, and I likely won't pay any attention to their answers in the future.  
 


At least they're being consistent.  Not saying you should trust CS, but this isn't their fault.  4E works this way.  

.
I also have a similar issue with the ruling on Commander's Strike, where the melee weapon tag is clearly meant for the ally and not the warlord.  


If that was the case, the power would be ranged, or a close burst.  It is not.  

The creature must be within melee range for the Warlord to designate it as the target.
I can't believe the stupidity behind the ruling of versatile weapons only counting as 1 handed weapons.  

It very clearly goes against both common sense and the designer's intent, and doesn't just penalize but shuts small characters out of certain builds completely.

from the PH, pg 215:
 "Other one-handed weapons are large enough that you can keep a good grip on them with two hands and deal extra damage by using them as two-handed weapons".

It really undermines the credibility of the Customer Service department  in my PoV, and I likely won't pay any attention to their answers in the future.  

I also have a similar issue with the ruling on Commander's Strike, where the melee weapon tag is clearly meant for the ally and not the warlord.  



CS is notorious for not looking at the big picture. Which is why sometimes you'll get an answer that is right, and other times you'll get a wrong answer.

But I do have a quick question. If you already knew the answer, why were you asking CS for one? You already have raw supporting versatile weapons being used as two-handed weapons. Anyone who chooses to ignore said fact is deliberately ignoring that section or isn't aware of it. A more appropriate answer should have given to you by CS instead. For example:"Due to conflicting text in the phb, this is something your DM will have to decide upon. In the meantime, I have submitted this situation to the update team for further review. Thank you an have a nice day."

So in a nutshell, until that section you quoted from the phb is deleted/altered/updated, or a faq entry specifically states "Versatile weapons NEVER count as two-handed weapons", this question will probably never reach a consensus. 


I can't believe the stupidity behind the ruling of versatile weapons only counting as 1 handed weapons.  

You mean that they dare to rule according to RAW?

It very clearly goes against both common sense

Common sense is not something that applies to technical classifications (e.g. a close burst 1 attack with a melee weapon (e.g. Sweeping Blow) also isn't a melee attack but a close attack) like game terms.

 

and the designer's intent,

Well, the designers should write down what they mean if they write something different than they intended, it's their error

and doesn't just penalize but shuts small characters out of certain builds completely.

For this there was the recent errata that changed from "2h weapons" to "2h weapons or weapons wielded with two hands" (which incidentally implies that they have completely given up on the designers original intend and decided to live with how RAW was written down instead of fixing RAW to match the intend)

It really undermines the credibility of the Customer Service department

Actually such rulings restore some small credibility compared to the many other cases Cust Serv ruled against RAW and even against other Cust Serv answers.

I also have a similar issue with the ruling on Commander's Strike, where the melee weapon tag is clearly meant for the ally and not the warlord.  

That's not how powers work in 4e. There is a strict template for how to write powers and the keywords for the ally are under melee basic attack and not under the triggering warlord power

You already have raw supporting versatile weapons being used as two-handed weapons. Anyone who chooses to ignore said fact is deliberately ignoring that section or isn't aware of it

If there ever was doubt on what RAW is for this issue, the errata to the barbarian powers should have ended it once and for all.

In my defense, I'm not nearly as stubborn about Commander's Strike, there's definitely ambiguity there, I just prefer to rule it as ranged (especially since we're getting a ranged build for warlords).

Saric, I didn't actually ask CS about versatile weapons.  i just accidentally read it on the consolidated answer thread, and subsequently got enraged by it, hence why I posted.

Mirtek, I don't believe that CS' intepretation is RAW, see my quote in the original post.  Nevermind the fact that it's so sensible and obvious that it really doesn't need to be stated more clearly.  As someone else stated in a different thread, the barbarian errata is a case of having to cater to the lowest common denominator.

I don't mean to troll, but if you think that a bastard sword wielded in both hands by a small creature is not a 2 handed weapon, there's something very wrong with your skills of perception. 
Mirtek, I don't believe that CS' intepretation is RAW, see my quote in the original post.  Nevermind the fact that it's so clear cut and obvious that it really doesn't need to be stated more clearly.  As



That mentions nothing about the Versatile property... you are just inferring a connection.

The most obvious place to look for the rules on Versatile would be... the rules on Versatile:

Versatile: Versatile weapons are one-handed, but
you can use them two-handed. If you do, you deal an
extra 1 point of damage when you roll damage for the
weapon.
A Small character such as a halfling must use a
versatile weapon two-handed and doesn’t deal extra
damage.

Nothing about them being treated as two-handed weapons--and they can be found under the "one-handed" categories of each of the melee weapon charts.
Mirtek, I don't believe that CS' intepretation is RAW, see my quote in the original post.  Nevermind the fact that it's so clear cut and obvious that it really doesn't need to be stated more clearly.  As



That mentions nothing about the Versatile property... you are just inferring a connection.

The most obvious place to look for the rules on Versatile would be... the rules on Versatile:

Versatile: Versatile weapons are one-handed, but
you can use them two-handed. If you do, you deal an
extra 1 point of damage when you roll damage for the
weapon.
A Small character such as a halfling must use a
versatile weapon two-handed and doesn’t deal extra
damage.

Nothing about them being treated as two-handed weapons--and they can be found under the "one-handed" categories of each of the melee weapon charts.



  It is very, very clearly talking about 1 handed weapons with the versatile property. 

Mirtek, I don't believe that CS' intepretation is RAW, see my quote in the original post.

Using them "as two-handed" weapons doesn't make them two-handed weapons. If I use my lighter to open my bottle of beer I have used my lighter as a bottle opener but it's still not a bottle opener.

Mearls once wrote a very interesting post in which he clearly stated that it was his intend to have versatile being the best of both worlds, yet in this very post he also admited that what was written down might not actually be what was supposed to be written down.


If a weapon is in the one-handed table it's one handed, no matter whether you're able to use it with both hands. Also if a weapon is in the two-handed table, it's two handed, no matter whether you're able to use it one-handed. Unless the respective feature allowing the different number of hands grip also states that the weapon becomes a different kind of weapon.


There were several thread about this debate in the past. The last one lasting more than 20 pages (IIRC) and finally coming to an end with the errata to barbarian powers. Which also has nothing to do with the lowest common denominator, that could have been reached with much less text by simply making a small errata to the versatile property instead of having to make an errata to every single affected barbarian power. The chosen way not only used thrice as much space, it also opened a new argument whether you could just grap almost any melee weapon with two hands (gaining no benefit if it's not versatile) and use it for these powers


 


 



 It is very, very clearly talking about 1 handed weapons with the versatile property. 


If they wanted versatile weapons to be treated as 2-handed weapons, then they would have said so in the versatile property text. Looking into the fluff text for rules is not a very solid way to determine how to treat different aspects of the game.

It doesn't have to be said in plain text, it's ***** obvious what they intended!  You guys are in the clear minority on this issue. Is it some kind of dysfunction to be unable to infer even the most basic rules from common-sense concepts?



Intended or not, the rules are what they are.

Applying "common sense" to a fantasy based game system is never a good idea. "Common sense" tells me that, if a barbarian can charge after dropping a foe, he should be able to charge after dropping every foe...

It doesn't have to be said in plain text, it's ***** obvious what they intended!  You guys are in the clear minority on this issue. Is it some kind of dysfunction to be unable to infer even the most basic rules from common-sense concepts?



Intended or not, the rules are what they are.

Applying "common sense" to a fantasy based game system is never a good idea. "Common sense" tells me that, if a barbarian can charge after dropping a foe, he should be able to charge after dropping every foe...



No, common sense has nothing to do with how often a barbarian might find an opening to charge an opponent.  Furthermore, running the game relies on usage of common sense by all players involved. 

It doesn't have to be said in plain text, it's f**** obvious what they intended!  You guys are in the clear minority on this issue. Is it some kind of dysfunction to be unable to infer even the most basic rules from common-sense concepts?


Clearly WotC is also part of this minority because they changed the Barbarian powers so that small characters could take the class and still use the at-will powers.
i absolutely will not debate this with anyone because anyone with a mind that narrow will never get it.



And yet you continue to - without actually responding to any of the points raised.  The lighter/bottle opener analogy is especially apt - I believe I will steal it. 

It doesn't have to be said in plain text, it's f**** obvious what they intended!



So you're telepathic?  And if it's so obvious, why is this question frequently raised on these boards?

You guys are in the clear minority on this issue



Doubtful.  And even if we were, we'd still be right.

I think this topic is exhausted. (removed).

And yet you continue to - without actually responding to any of the points raised.  The lighter/bottle opener analogy is especially apt - I believe I will steal it.



No it isn't, a lighter being used to open a bottle is in that moment functioning as a bottle opener, regardless of what else it can be used as.  In any case, there's hardly any similarity between the two so it's a moot point.  And yes, I've responded to virtually every point raised.  This is a generic 'i'm winning the argument because you're not responding how i want you to' comment.  note: false. 

So you're telepathic?  And if it's so obvious, why is this question frequently raised on these boards?



I've presented all of the evidence I feel is necessary for this conclusion.  It's intuitively obvious, to any casual observer.  Only someone who takes the rules far too seriously will question it. 

Doubtful.  And even if we were, we'd still be right.



I know a lot of D&D players in real life, and not a single one of them has questioned the intent of
the design behind the versatile property.  You are not right, you are just viewing the rules as laid out in an improbably narrow way.   

(Removed for continuity: quotes removed content)

I've presented all of the evidence I feel is necessary for this conclusion. 



Versatile would have to mimic the stout property:

Stout: A weapon that has the stout property can be
treated as a two-handed weapon.

It does not say that, and has not yet been errata'd to say that.

I've presented all of the evidence I feel is necessary for this conclusion. 



Versatile would have to mimic the stout property:

Stout: A weapon that has the stout property can be
treated as a two-handed weapon.

It does not say that, and has not yet been errata'd to say that.



Stout was created specifically for double weapons after the player's handbook.  It was likely created to put into even plainer words what they meant for others to assume about the versatile rules.

now, to regress a bit, I think all of this would be a lot less messy if small characters could just use all weapons, then I wouldn't be so bothered by the versatile /= 2 handed thing.  Then, there would be no need for the small category and they could just be called medium (medium covers a huge range already anway). 
Stout was created specifically for double weapons after the player's handbook.  It was likely created to put into even plainer words what they meant for others to assume about the versatile rules.

Or possibly you are making an assumption about the versatile rules that isn't correct.   OTOH, you could be interpreting the RAI correctly, even if the RAW were completely clear that it disagreed with your position.

Versatile has been debated over and over again, and even with the new Barbarian powers update the issue apparently isn't settled.  The rules aren't black and white on this issue, despite your position.  Personally I agree with Soiut and plenty of others on this, but I don't think any less of folks that have a different interpretation on the issue.  It doesn't merit making it personal.


Oh my God, how much intelligence do you have to have to make that inference?  It is very, very clearly talking about 1 handed weapons with the versatile property.  i absolutely will not debate this with anyone because anyone with a mind that narrow will never get it.



How much intelligence do you have to have to understand a rules system? If they wanted versatile weapons to be treated as 2-handed weapons, then they would have said so in the versatile property text. Looking into the fluff text for rules is not a very solid way to determine how to treat different aspects of the game.




Suo, that section is not fluff text, its actually listed in the section defining the classifications of one-handed/two-handed weapons. Also since the initial terms are bolded in black, as common sense dictates in dnd, this means that whatever is after the bold is an actual game term or is very important information regarding the bold, rather than some random "fluff text". Otherwise, if you consider that section to be "fluff text", you obviously must also infer that the section under versatile is "fluff text" as well, since it is under a bolded section just as well.

Even though the quote of the OP isn't "fluff text", I can still show you a few examples of where "fluff text" either overrides or explains how certain things are supposed to work and should be treated as such.

Case #1: Flaming Weapon. A flaming weapon's at-will magical power allows you to change all damage to fire damage. So under a literal interpretation, if you are using a power with the radiant keyword, the power gains the fire keyword (according to the faq), and should only deal fire damage.

However, an example shown earlier in the chapter (phb 266) details that isn't how it works. All the damage should be fire and radiant damage. 

When you use a magic item as part of a racial power or a class power, the keywords of the item’s power and the other power all apply. For instance, if a paladin uses a flaming sword to attack with a power that deals radiant damage, the power deals both fire damage and radiant damage.





Case 2: the reach weapon property says "With a reach weapon, you can attack enemies that are 2 squares away from you, as well as adjacent enemies."
Now if you take this property definition to an extreme (like you are doing with the versatile property) you can conclude that a large creature with a reach weapon can still only attack an enemy up to 2 squares away with a large longspear. Oh, and even if he was dominated, he can't attack an ally when the dominating creature tells him/her to do so, since the reach property is specific about "enemies" rather than "creatures".

This interpretation is clearly nonsensical and lacks common sense. Now take this interesting sentence from page 220 of the phb. And for the record, its not even under a bold section of any kind.
When a creature that has a natural reach uses a reach weapon, the weapon increases the creature’s natural reach by 1 square. 





This quote from page 220 clearly explains that any creature who uses a reach weapon gains 1 extra square of reach. So an ogre with a reach 2 can attack up to 3 squares away, rather than 2. Would you dare to say that such a ruling is against the raw?

If you do, you'd be ignoring a clear and explicit explanation in the rules of how reach is supposed to work for larger creatures. If you don't disagree with this interpretation I have a question for you then. This interpretation uses text that isn't even located under the reach property, nor is it under a bolded section. So if you can accept this about the reach property's interpretation, how can you not agree with the notion that versatile weapons are inferred to under the one-handed definition given on page 215 of the phb? That's like saying you don't believe in marriage except on easter.

 
But the quote from the "fluff" text isn't conclusive.  Using something as a two-handed weapon isn't necessarily the same thing as being a two-handed weapon.  And in this case, it directly contradicts a strict reading of what the property says.  The off-hand rules have similar issues.

But IMO that's one of the reasons it isn't clear cut.  *shrug*  I'm in favor of taking a relatively tightly worded property rule over an unclear general blurb whenever that happens, but clearly not everyone sees it that same way, or thinks that the property is clear while the blurb isn't.

Also, to address one of your other points:
1) Flaming weapons the rules do create all fire damage, unless you consider the wording to add the damage type isntead of replace it.  (Some people do.)  And yes, that interpretation directly contradicts the example, which is an example, not a rule.  Like Versatile weapons, debated heavily and frequently.

Stout was created specifically for double weapons after the player's handbook.  It was likely created to put into even plainer words what they meant for others to assume about the versatile rules.

Or possibly you are making an assumption about the versatile rules that isn't correct.   OTOH, you could be interpreting the RAI correctly, even if the RAW were completely clear that it disagreed with your position.

Versatile has been debated over and over again, and even with the new Barbarian powers update the issue apparently isn't settled.  The rules aren't black and white on this issue, despite your position.  Personally I agree with Soiut and plenty of others on this, but I don't think any less of folks that have a different interpretation on the issue.  It doesn't merit making it personal.




That's the thing though, the RAW wasn't clear at all and if anything implied what I've stated.  I'm sorry but this is something I'm very passionate about because I plainly cannot grasp how it can be stated that a large weapon wielded with both hands (regardless if it *can* be wielded with one hand) isn't a two-handed weapon (especially in the case of small characters).

It defies my mind's logic.  

 edit:  another point that can be reverse-inferred, PHB pg.220 "Large creatures can use two-handed weapons for creatures one category smaller for themselves and treat them as one-handed weapons".  That proves that the designation of one-handed/two-handed is relative to the character's size and method of wielding, not absolute per the weapon as many people suggest. 
But the quote from the "fluff" text isn't conclusive.  Using something as a two-handed weapon isn't necessarily the same thing as being a two-handed weapon.  And in this case, it directly contradicts a strict reading of what the property says.  The off-hand rules have similar issues.

But IMO that's one of the reasons it isn't clear cut.  *shrug*  I'm in favor of taking a relatively tightly worded property rule over an unclear general blurb whenever that happens, but clearly not everyone sees it that same way, or thinks that the property is clear while the blurb isn't.

Also, to address one of your other points:
1) Flaming weapons the rules do create all fire damage, unless you consider the wording to add the damage type isntead of replace it.  (Some people do.)  And yes, that interpretation directly contradicts the example, which is an example, not a rule.  Like Versatile weapons, debated heavily and frequently.




I don't agree. "Used as" means it is considered to be that for all purposes unless specified otherwise (like multi-class feats).
But here is a good example. The convert's symbol from AV 2 (p28)

Property: Arcane casters can wield this holy symbol in one hand to use it as an implement for arcane powers. Choose the type of arcane implement when the symbol is created. 

Let us suppose we make the symbol count as a wand. Say a wizard with the wand of accuracy class feature, decides to use the symbol. Since the symbol is being used as an wand, he could apply his wand of accuracy class feature when attacking with this symbol, could he not? Or if he picked up the wizard implement expertise feat, could he not crit on a 19-20 when using an arcane power via the symbol?  If you agree with this logic, how could you say that some one-handed weapons can't be used/considered as a two-handed weapons? 

Suo, that section is not fluff text, its actually listed in the section defining the classifications of one-handed/two-handed weapons. Also since the initial terms are bolded in black, as common sense dictates in dnd, this means that whatever is after the bold is an actual game term or is very important information regarding the bold, rather than some random "fluff text". Otherwise, if you consider that section to be "fluff text", you obviously must also infer that the section under versatile is "fluff text" as well, since it is under a bolded section just as well.



The paragraph cited is seperate from the paragraph talking about one/two-handed classification.

Even though the quote of the OP isn't "fluff text", I can still show you a few examples of where "fluff text" either overrides or explains how certain things are supposed to work and should be treated as such.

Case #1: Flaming Weapon. A flaming weapon's at-will magical power allows you to change all damage to fire damage. So under a literal interpretation, if you are using a power with the radiant keyword, the power gains the fire keyword (according to the faq), and should only deal fire damage.

However, an example shown earlier in the chapter (phb 266) details that isn't how it works. All the damage should be fire and radiant damage. 

When you use a magic item as part of a racial power or a class power, the keywords of the item’s power and the other power all apply. For instance, if a paladin uses a flaming sword to attack with a power that deals radiant damage, the power deals both fire damage and radiant damage.



 


You seem to be assuming that flaming weapon says "all damage dealt by this weapon is only fire damage." It does not say that. As it has been made pretty clear with the most recent update, fire+radiant damage is still considered fire damage.



Case 2: the reach weapon property says "With a reach weapon, you can attack enemies that are 2 squares away from you, as well as adjacent enemies."
Now if you take this property definition to an extreme (like you are doing with the versatile property) you can conclude that a large creature with a reach weapon can still only attack an enemy up to 2 squares away with a large longspear. Oh, and even if he was dominated, he can't attack an ally when the dominating creature tells him/her to do so, since the reach property is specific about "enemies" rather than "creatures".



First, can =/= must. Nothing about "can" is an inclusive or restrictive sentence... unless you think that you have to hold versatile weapons in two hands, since it says you can.

This interpretation is clearly nonsensical and lacks common sense. Now take this interesting sentence from page 220 of the phb. And for the record, its not even under a bold section of any kind.
When a creature that has a natural reach uses a reach weapon, the weapon increases the creature’s natural reach by 1 square.



Second, as you point out here, there are different rules for creatures larger (and smaller) than normal player sizes. Being that the section you quoted actually calls out a weapon property (and its effects on a creature with natural reach) as opposed to alluding to it, makes it pretty hard to compare.



This quote from page 220 clearly explains that any creature who uses a reach weapon gains 1 extra square of reach. So an ogre with a reach 2 can attack up to 3 squares away, rather than 2. Would you dare to say that such a ruling is against the raw?

Not at all.


If you do, you'd be ignoring a clear and explicit explanation in the rules of how reach is supposed to work for larger creatures. If you don't disagree with this interpretation I have a question for you then. This interpretation uses text that isn't even located under the reach property, nor is it under a bolded section. So if you can accept this about the reach property's interpretation, how can you not agree with the notion that versatile weapons are inferred to under the one-handed definition given on page 215 of the phb? That's like saying you don't believe in marriage except on easter.
 



As I pointed out above, it explicitly calls out the reach property instead of alluding to it. Also, monster's stat blocks already include all mechanical information in them. Inferred or not, the rules do not say that they become two-handed weapons when you use two hands to hold them.

Since the quoted section on PH 215 does not call out any special circumstances in order to hold a one-handed weapon in two hands, would you say I could take a javelin and hold it in two-hands? It is definitely possible to do so, but would you confer any mechanical benefits for it? Could I use it with Reaping Strike and do more damage on a miss, simply because I am holding it in two hands?

Also, to address one of your other points:
1) Flaming weapons the rules do create all fire damage, unless you consider the wording to add the damage type isntead of replace it.  (Some people do.)  And yes, that interpretation directly contradicts the example, which is an example, not a rule.  Like Versatile weapons, debated heavily and frequently.




This is not something that's come up in my games.  May I ask you to point me to a source? 




Just look at the flaming weapon power on p234 of the phb.

Power (At-Will !Fire): Free Action. All damage dealt by this weapon is fire damage. Another free action returns the damage to normal. 

If the power says its all fire damage, if you use a cold power, it should all be converted to fire. The faq is also silent on the matter since it states that the keyword is added, but no where does it say that the damage is also added.
So under this interpretation you could infer that a using a cold power with a flaming weapon would make it have the cold and fire keywords, but deal all fire damage. And you would have a case.  

My interpretation on the issue is that since damage really isn't halved like it used to before the phb updates, all the damage is fire damage and cold damage. Before the updates, damage of two keywords were halved. So if you did 10 damage with a fire/cold power, 5 was fire and 5 was cold. Now its just 10 damage of fire/cold together for resist purposes. Another reason is since the flaming weapon doesn't say it replaces the other damage completely akin to shadowfell gloves (phb247) (Power (Daily ! Necrotic): Minor Action. Change the damage type dealt by the next arcane power you use to necrotic.)


And this interpretation also coincides with the example given in the magic item power section. Another reason is that it is just kinda nutty to have an extra keyword lingering around and not do any damage of that type whatsoever.







The paragraph cited is seperate from the paragraph talking about one/two-handed classification


 It is still specifically discussing weapons and what it says is very clear and consise.  To argue that it isn't is factually wrong. 

You seem to be assuming that flaming weapon says "all damage dealt by this weapon is only fire damage." It does not say that. As it has been made pretty clear with the most recent update, fire+radiant damage is still considered fire damage.



Just like the description for the versatile property doesn't state "versatile weapons are still considered 1 handed weapons, regardless of if they're wielded in 1 or both hands" and in fact implies the opposite in 'fluff' text. 



Fluff text has absolutely no bearing on a rules discussion.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Fluff text has absolutely no bearing on a rules discussion.



Wrong, everything in the PHB can be considered rules.  "Fluff text" is an improper designation, the paragraph in question is no less valid a source than the descriptive paragragh under the versatile heading. 

That's the thing though, the RAW wasn't clear at all and if anything implied what I've stated.  I'm sorry but this is something I'm very passionate about because I plainly cannot grasp how it can be stated that a large weapon wielded with both hands (regardless if it *can* be wielded with one hand) isn't a two-handed weapon (especially in the case of small characters).

It defies my mind's logic.  

 edit:  another point that can be reverse-inferred, PHB pg.220 "Large creatures can use two-handed weapons for creatures one category smaller for themselves and treat them as one-handed weapons".  That proves that the designation of one-handed/two-handed is relative to the character's size and method of wielding, not absolute per the weapon as many people suggest. 



It is simple. Because the rules never say they are treated as two-handed weapons. As you yourself pointed out, there is a rule for larger creatures using smaller 2-handed weapons and treating them as 1-handed.



Just look at the flaming weapon power on p234 of the phb.

Power (At-Will !Fire): Free Action. All damage dealt by this weapon is fire damage. Another free action returns the damage to normal. 

If the power says its all fire damage, if you use a cold power, it should all be converted to fire. The faq is also silent on the matter since it states that the keyword is added, but no where does it say that the damage is also added.
So under this interpretation you could infer that a using a cold power with a flaming weapon would make it have the cold and fire keywords, but deal all fire damage. And you would have a case.  

My interpretation on the issue is that since damage really isn't halved like it used to before the phb updates, all the damage is fire damage and cold damage. Before the updates, damage of two keywords were halved. So if you did 10 damage with a fire/cold power, 5 was fire and 5 was cold. Now its just 10 damage of fire/cold together for resist purposes. Another reason is since the flaming weapon doesn't say it replaces the other damage completely akin to shadowfell gloves (phb247) (Power (Daily ! Necrotic): Minor Action. Change the damage type dealt by the next arcane power you use to necrotic.)


And this interpretation also coincides with the example given in the magic item power section. Another reason is that it is just kinda nutty to have an extra keyword lingering around and not do any damage of that type whatsoever.




See my previous post. "All damage" does not inherently mean it is "only damage." Are do you think that if I am dealing 10 fire+radiant damage that all of my damage is not fire damage?


Just like the description for the versatile property doesn't state "versatile weapons are still considered 1 handed weapons, regardless of if they're wielded in 1 or both hands" and in fact implies the opposite in 'fluff' text. 



They have to explicitely state that they are no longer treated as one-handed weapons to be anything but that. This is not the case.


Wrong, everything in the PHB can be considered rules.  "Fluff text" is an improper designation, the paragraph in question is no less valid a source than the descriptive paragragh under the versatile heading. 



So my javelin being held in two-hands counts as a two-handed weapon, yes?


They have to explicitely state that they are no longer treated as one-handed weapons to be anything but that. This is not the case.



This right here is the crux of the issue.  My logic tells me the exact opposite.  Maybe it's a left vs. right brained thing or something.

It is simple. Because the rules never say they are treated as two-handed weapons. As you yourself pointed out, there is a rule for larger creatures using smaller 2-handed weapons and treating them as 1-handed.

They have to explicitely state that they are no longer treated as one-handed weapons to be anything but that. This is not the case.

So my javelin being held in two-hands counts as a two-handed weapon, yes?



Do I need to repeat the example of the convert's symbol? It never ceases to be a holy symbol but can be used as an arcane implement, and will be treated as such when used in that manner. The same thing applies to versatile.

And a javelin obviously doesn't count as a two-handed weapon since it doesn't have the versatile property. Sure you can swing it in two hands, but it isn't being "used two-handed" or "as a two-handed weapon". If it had the versatile property, it would be considered to be "large enough that you can keep a good grip with two hands and deal extra damage by using them (it) as a two-handed weapon".  And for the record, the versatile property clearly states that versatile weapons are "one-handed  but can be used two-handed". Since two-handed is a weapon category, rather than just being as simple as wielding something in two hands, the interpretation that versatile weapons can't be used as two-handed weapons loses a lot of credibility and doesn't hold much water.



Do I need to repeat the example of the convert's symbol? It never ceases to be a holy symbol but can be used as an arcane implement, and will be treated as such when used in that manner. The same thing applies to versatile.

I'm sorry. I must have missed the rule saying that versatile weapons could be treated as two-handed weapons... Convert's Symbol says it can be treated as such, so it can. Versatile never says it can be treated as such, so it cannot.

And a javelin obviously doesn't count as a two-handed weapon since it doesn't have the versatile property. Sure you can swing it in two hands, but it isn't being used two-handed or as a two-handed weapon. If it had the versatile property, it would be considered to be "large enough that you can keep a good grip with two hands and deal extra damage by using them (it) as a two-handed weapon".

Who said anything about versatile property with the javelin? The line that continues to be quoted ("Other one-handed weapons are large enough that you can keep a good grip on them with two hands and deal extra damage by using them as two-handed weapons.") Says nothing about versatile. Are you trying to say that a javelin is not large enough to keep a good grip on it? I mean, this is the "rule" is it not?

 
And for the record, the versatile property clearly states that versatile weapons are "one-handed  but can be used two-handed". Since two-handed is a weapon category, rather than just being as simple as wielding something in two hands, the interpretation that versatile weapons can't be used as two-handed weapons loses a lot of credibility and doesn't hold much water.



Yes, it can be used "two-handed," as in, you can use it with two hands. This is the most common definition of "two-handed" out there.  It does not say "you can use them as two-handed weapons." Compare this to the quote you provided earlier about large creatures using smaller two-handed weapons. "...and treat them as one-handed weapons." Notice what is in that sentence that is not in the versatile property?

the versatile property clearly states that versatile weapons are "one-handed  but can be used two-handed"



This is not the same as saying that they become members of the Two-Handed weapon category.

Since two-handed is a weapon category, rather than just being as simple as wielding something in two hands, the interpretation that versatile weapons can't be used as two-handed weapons loses a lot of credibility and doesn't hold much water.



This argues the opposite.  As you say, One-handed and Two-handed are weapon categories, not matters of how the weapon is wielded.  Thus, a One-Handed weapon with the Versatile property remains a One-Handed weapon regardless of how it is wielded.
At this point both RAW and RAI are ambiguous.  As with any situation where the rules are ambiguous, groups should decide what works best for themselves, with DM as final arbiter.

Any argument that hinges on the specific wording of versatile is ludicrous.  There is no evidence that the original writers intended "this weapon can be used two handed" and "this weapon can be used as a two-handed weapon" to mean different things, and there is significant evidence that they did intend the two phrases to be interchangeable in the form of: 1. the fact that the property is described elsewhere in the book using the magic word "as" and 2. an explicit statement by Mike Mearls.  If a weapon can be used two handed, then by definition it is a two handed weapon.  (As a side effect, this also means that you can use thrown melee weapons such as daggers and throwing axes to meet the requirements of ranger powers that require a ranged weapon.)

However, since the PHB WotC has consistently interpreted the rule (contrary to the designer's stated intention) to mean that versatile weapons are one-handed only.  This is evident in the character builder, the FAQ, and the errata.

My personal conjecture is that some of the developers have been assuming that versatile weapons are one handed only and some of them have been assuming that they can be used as both two handed or one handed weapons.  There is currently internal disagreement, and eventually we will receive an unequivocal statement one way or the other.

In the meantime, somewhere out there amongst the thousands of people who purchased the PHB2, there is some poor little boy named li'l Johnny, and he is very poor indeed, and mostly illiterate, and he probably won't live to see next Christmas, who spent an entire month's pay from his job working as a dirt miner on the PHB2 because he saw that there were gnomes and barbarians and he thought, "Awesome, I will make a gnome barbarian, and it will probably be my only joy in this, my last year of life."  And then Li'l Johnny's rules-lawyering DM told Johnny that he could never use his second at-will as a gnome barbarian.  That's why they issued the errata to the barbarian powers, to help out li'l Johnny before he dies of blacklung, or whatever it is that kills dirtminers.

Meanwhile, most of the devs have probably thrown up their hands in disgust at the whole debate, but there are two left who are typing furious e-mails to each right now saying things like:

"Look, how big of an idiot do you have to be to misunderstand the difference between 'used as a two-handed weapon' and 'used two-handed?'"
"How big of an idiot do you have to be to misunderstand that a weapon that can be used two-handed is by definition a weapon that can be used as a two-handed weapon?"
"Pfft, like I'm going to trust the interpretation of the guy who came up with tribal feats!  How moronic are those?"
"Yeah, well, at least I'm not the moron who said, 'Hey, let's just throw in weapon expertise to fix the epic level math.'"

Etc.

If I had the opportunity to plead my case to WotC, I would argue that versatile weapons should be able to fulfill two-handed weapon requirements, because that interpretation is simply more interesting than the interpretation that merely grants +1 damage.  It means that a character who wields a versatile weapon can, as a free action, swap back and forth between two-handed feats and powers and one-handed feats and powers.  As a minor action he can equip a shield and meet those requirements as well.  Compared to juggling three different fighting styles, doing +1 damage is just lame.

In the meantime, somewhere out there amongst the thousands of people who purchased the PHB2, there is some poor little boy named li'l Johnny, and he is very poor indeed, and mostly illiterate, and he probably won't live to see next Christmas, who spent an entire month's pay from his job working as a dirt miner on the PHB2 because he saw that there were gnomes and barbarians and he thought, "Awesome, I will make a gnome barbarian, and it will probably be my only joy in this, my last year of life."  And then Li'l Johnny's rules-lawyering DM told Johnny that he could never use his second at-will as a gnome barbarian.  That's why they issued the errata to the barbarian powers, to help out li'l Johnny before he dies of blacklung, or whatever it is that kills dirtminers.

I lol'd

As a minor action he can equip a shield and meet those requirements as well.  Compared to juggling three different fighting styles, doing +1 damage is just lame.



It is a standard action to retrieve and equip a shield (and vice-versa).

Do I need to repeat the example of the convert's symbol? It never ceases to be a holy symbol but can be used as an arcane implement, and will be treated as such when used in that manner. The same thing applies to versatile.

I'm sorry. I must have missed the rule saying that versatile weapons could be treated as two-handed weapons... Convert's Symbol says it can be treated as such, so it can. Versatile never says it can be treated as such, so it cannot.

And a javelin obviously doesn't count as a two-handed weapon since it doesn't have the versatile property. Sure you can swing it in two hands, but it isn't being used two-handed or as a two-handed weapon. If it had the versatile property, it would be considered to be "large enough that you can keep a good grip with two hands and deal extra damage by using them (it) as a two-handed weapon".

Who said anything about versatile property with the javelin? The line that continues to be quoted ("Other one-handed weapons are large enough that you can keep a good grip on them with two hands and deal extra damage by using them as two-handed weapons.") Says nothing about versatile. Are you trying to say that a javelin is not large enough to keep a good grip on it? I mean, this is the "rule" is it not?

 
And for the record, the versatile property clearly states that versatile weapons are "one-handed  but can be used two-handed". Since two-handed is a weapon category, rather than just being as simple as wielding something in two hands, the interpretation that versatile weapons can't be used as two-handed weapons loses a lot of credibility and doesn't hold much water.



Yes, it can be used "two-handed," as in, you can use it with two hands. This is the most common definition of "two-handed" out there.  It does not say "you can use them as two-handed weapons." Compare this to the quote you provided earlier about large creatures using smaller two-handed weapons. "...and treat them as one-handed weapons." Notice what is in that sentence that is not in the versatile property?



You know, you're funny . The common definition argument can't work in this case. This is because "two-handed" and "one-handed" are game terms in dnd with their own unique definitions. You know, kinda like how certain keywords are defined in game  (Implement,Fire,Ranged,Initiative,etc), or what insubstancial means or even what "wielding" means in-game.
As a result, the game's own definitions separate what is "common" from a normal dictionary. And typically when this occurs in the phb or any of the rulebooks, these are bolded and explained in a few sentences or paragraphs afterwards. Otherwise, we wouldn't know that only one holy symbol can be worn/held or none of them function since it tells that information in the third paragraph of page 236 of the phb. (This is in response to you saying "The paragraph cited is seperate from the paragraph talking about one/two-handed classification.") I guess that paragraph is separate too, I guess I can wear 30 holy symbols and gain all the properties powers.

And for the record, I didn't quote anything about large creatures using one-handed or two-handed weapons. I just spoke of "reach". I believe it was Einlanzer.


It is a standard action to retrieve and equip a shield (and vice-versa).



That actually makes a lot of sense.  I've never seen it in-game but for some reason I assumed it was a minor just like weapons and it always seemed too easy for something as heavy and clumsy as a shield.
Any argument that hinges on the specific wording of versatile is ludicrous.  There is no evidence that the original writers intended...



The specific wording is what they gave us, so that's what we discuss.  Anything else is conjecture.

The question being debated is, "what is the rule?"  There is a definitive answer to that, irrespective of author's intent.  (Not always the case, as there can be direct contradiction.  But we do not encounter that in this instance).

It's not at all unreasonable to say "The rule is X, but the authors probably intended this to do Y, so that's how I'm playing it."  But we need to reach agreement on the "The rule is X" part.

You know, you're funny . The common definition argument can't work in this case. This is because "two-handed" and "one-handed" are game terms in dnd with their own unique definitions. You know, kinda like how certain keywords are defined in game  (Implement,Fire,Ranged,Initiative,etc), or what insubstancial means or even what "wielding" means in-game.
As a result, the game's own definitions separate what is "common" from a normal dictionary. And typically when this occurs in the phb or any of the rulebooks, these are bolded and explained in a few sentences or paragraphs afterwards. Otherwise, we wouldn't know that only one holy symbol can be worn/held or none of them function since it tells that information in the third paragraph of page 236 of the phb. (This is in response to you saying "The paragraph cited is seperate from the paragraph talking about one/two-handed classification.") I guess that paragraph is separate too, I guess I can wear 30 holy symbols and gain all the properties powers.



Well, in that case, a small character can never wield a versatile weapon then--if using it two-handed means it is a two-handed weapon.

BEING SMALL
Small characters follow most of the same rules as Medium
ones, with the following exceptions.
✦ You can’t use two-handed weapons (page 215), such as
greatswords and halberds.
✦ When you use a versatile weapon (page 217), such as a
longsword, you must use it two-handed, but you don’t
deal additional damage for doing so.

Here we have pretty clear text differentiating between "two-handed weapons" and "used two-handed."

And for the record, I didn't quote anything about large creatures using one-handed or two-handed weapons. I just spoke of "reach". I believe it was Einlanzer.



My bad, you are correct.

Any argument that hinges on the specific wording of versatile is ludicrous.  There is no evidence that the original writers intended...



The specific wording is what they gave us, so that's what we discuss.  Anything else is conjecture.

The question being debated is, "what is the rule?"  There is a definitive answer to that, irrespective of author's intent.  (Not always the case, as there can be direct contradiction.  But we do not encounter that in this instance).

It's not at all unreasonable to say "The rule is X, but the authors probably intended this to do Y, so that's how I'm playing it."  But we need to reach agreement on the "The rule is X" part.



Yes, I understand.  And I believe that the rule is ambiguous.  The PHB says one thing and the character builder and CS say another.  Neither the CB nor CS is considered authoritative for very good reasons, but they are consistent on this matter.  The PHB, however, is authoritative, and the wording there is not clear.

It is conjecture to claim that "used two handed" and "used as a two handed weapon" mean different things.  Even if the interpretation that versatile weapons must always be one-handed weapons turns out to be definitive, that was poor wording.