Community

Jan 21, 2010 -- 12:13PM, Einlanzer wrote:

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

Jan 21, 2010 -- 12:31PM, Einlanzer wrote:

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.

Jan 21, 2010 -- 1:21PM, weenog42 wrote:

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)

Jan 21, 2010 -- 2:17PM, Suoitidure wrote:

Jan 21, 2010 -- 1:39PM, Einlanzer wrote:

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).