It seems that we would never be completely satisfied with each others' explanation for the very reason that we can't even agree on the same English terms plus we are blatantly ignoring Customer Service and the Character Builder.
I suppose the discussion would only end if an errata or a PHB3 entry would clarify the Versatile keyword, whether or not it is considered as a two-handed weapon when used as such. Until then, we would have to go with what your DM says, since the focus of the whole game is "fun", and not "who is right".
Yes the discussion will only end when WotC finally clarifies the issue, siting CS or the CB does nothing. Both are not the official 'rules' or place to go for official rulings, CS is interpretations by the individual CS, CB isn't all encompassing.
While it might be common English for you to consider "counted as" the same as "used as", the question is, is it grammatically correct to consider "counted as" and "used as" as one and the same?
It is not one and the same. To demonstrate:
Many americans take a fork and use it as a knife to cut their food. It is never actually a knife, nor would anyone in their right mind count it as a knife or try to claim it has changed classification to a knife.
Meanwhile, a spork counts as a spoon.
This is how verstatile weapons are, versus thrown weapons. Versatile weapons can be used as two-handed weapons (p215), but that in no way implies that they have changed classification to two-handed weapons. Meanwhile thrown weapons count as ranged weapons when thrown, which means they have effectively added a classification when used that way.
For all intents and purposes, the spiked chain training feat doesn't say this is now a double weapon, therefore it is not one. But, for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter since you're using it as one or treating it as one anyways. Which means a rogue or tempest fighter can use the spiked chain as a double weapon and be just fine.
I just wanted to say you meet all the Feat's prerequisits benfiting Light Blade or Offhand with Spiked Chain Training. According to most builds i've seen on the CharOp boards. And it is treated as one, which lead me to believe treating as is much similar to counting as something since it isn't only affecting the usage.
Any i just though the word as could change something. Now i am not to sure...My plain translation of my exemple in french give me the first as (As a DM), to mean being a...while the second as (such as) means like...Two different meaning.
But i still think the verb that precede it is what matters. Used as imply it's strickly in regard with the weilding of the item and how you manipulate it...while counting/treating as imply the said item is itself counting as or taken as something else.
Also, even though english isn't your first language, I understood what you were saying quite well. Either way, it was nice discussing the matter with you. Take it easy.
Indeed it was interesting for me too. Thanks Saric. Take it easy.
While it might be common English for you to consider "counted as" the same as "used as", the question is, is it grammatically correct to consider "counted as" and "used as" as one and the same?
It is not one and the same. To demonstrate:
Many americans take a fork and use it as a knife to cut their food. It is never actually a knife, nor would anyone in their right mind count it as a knife or try to claim it has changed classification to a knife.
Meanwhile, a spork counts as a spoon.
This is how verstatile weapons are, versus thrown weapons. Versatile weapons can be used as two-handed weapons (p215), but that in no way implies that they have changed classification to two-handed weapons. Meanwhile thrown weapons count as ranged weapons when thrown, which means they have effectively added a classification when used that way.
So basically you are saying the same thing about weapons used as implements. Or any other case in the books when an item is used as something else. Examples include: Farbond Spellblade (av2 p18), Unforgettable Cudgel (av2 p25), Staff of divinity (av2 p38), Verdant staff (av 2 p40), Avandra's whisper (av 1 p.63) blade of bahamut (av1 p.64), crusader's weapon (av1 p66), Moradin's weapon (av 1 p73), Climbing claws (av 1 p133), Holy avenger (phb 1 p.234),
So I rewrote your example with weapons used as implements, using your logic. It doesn't really seem to be a very accurate statement concerning the rules or their intent, if at all. "Many swordmages take a weapon and use it as a implement to cast their spells, It never is actually a implement, nor would anyone in their right mind count it as an implement or try to claim it has changed classification to an implement."
If a weapon can be implied to be considered an implement when used as one, you can't say it doesn't apply to versatile weapons used as two-handed weapons. Otherwise, you have a double standard concerning identical or almost identical wording. Also, as I pointed out on post #167 the word "as" can refer to the function something has. Which means a weapon used as an implement functions as an implement, thus a versatile weapon used as a two-handed weapon can function as a two-handed weapon. Sure, the word "as" has many other definitions and uses, but this definition of "as" can be assumed to be one of those cases, and as such, is a valid interpretation.
AS
preposition
1 used to refer to the function or character that someone or something has : he got a job as a cook | they were treated as foreigners | it came as a shock | as a U.S. adviser, he is a target for terrorism.
I'd also like to point out that "as" is present in both "used as" and "counted as", so I think it's best we focus on "used" versus "counted" rather than "as".
I think if you're going to pull up Swordmages, it's interesting to note that it's specifically stated that they can use Heavy Blade, Light Blade weapons as implements. Because they can use these weapons as implements, while they cannot add their proficiency bonus to the attack rolls of their implement attacks, they can still add their weapons' enhancement bonus to attack rolls and damage, as well as take advantage of their weapons' properties and powers (as stated in the rulebooks).
Again, there is no prerequisite for benefiting from objects as implements other than being able to use them as implements, even if normally they are not counted as one.
And again, while for some it might be implied that using Versatile weapons two-handed makes them two-handed, where is it specifically stated? If Holy Avenger, Unforgettable Cudgel, and other non-Holy Symbol implements specifically state that they can be used as holy symbols, and you benefit from objects under the Implement (Holy Symbol) category by being able to use them as holy symbols, and thus you benefit from them, there should be an entry where Versatile weapons used two-handed allows them to benefit from being wielded two-handed, right?
The entry specifically states that you can use Versatile weapons two-handed (it does not state that you use Versatile weapons as two-handed weapons; there's a big difference in that). If you use it two-handed and you aren't a small creature, you get +1 damage.
Until they make an errata stating they're usable as two-handed weapons, or they are counted as two-handed weapons, then they're not. Not in RPGA-legal games, at least.
But remember, the DM has the final say, so if it makes more sense to you that it works as a two-handed weapon and the DM allows it to be interpreted as such, just go for it then.
Main Entry: count Part of Speech: verb Definition: consider, deem Synonyms: await, esteem, expect, hope, impute, judge, look, look upon, rate, regard, think Antonyms: disregard, ignore
Main Entry: use Part of Speech: verb Definition: work with; consume Synonyms: accept, adopt, apply, avail oneself of, bestow, bring into play, bring to bear, capitalize, control, do with, draw on, employ, exercise, exert, exhaust, expend, exploit, find a use, govern, handle, make do with, make the most of, make use, manage, manipulate, operate, play on, ply, practice, press into service, put forth, put into action, put to use, put to work, regulate, relate, run, run through, set in motion, spend, take advantage of*, turn to account, utilize, waste, wield, work Antonyms: abstain, leave alone
OFF-TOPIC: I know CS doesn't bear any weight in this topic, but I was curious if my assumption that one-handed weapons could be used two-handed on a general basis was correct (and I wanted to confirm (again) if Versatile weapons counted as two-handed weapons when used two-handed). Apparently, it's assumed that among all one-handed weapons, only Versatile weapons had a hilt big enough to fit two hands, and thus gave a mechanical benefit for being wielded two-handed... but because there's no mechanical benefit for wielding most one-handed weapons two-handed [except maybe for having it work with Barbarian powers (hehehe)], if the DM allows the use of non-Versatile weapons two-handed, it's still good.
A one handed weapon is designed to be used one handed, there is not enough room on the hilt to wield one of these weapons with two hands. The exception to this rule is weapons with the versatile feature. Though as it offers no game mechanic advantage your DM may allow it anyway. Happy Gaming!
To login to your account, or update your question please click here.
Shawn
Online Response Crew Wizards of the Coast 1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada) 425-204-8069 (From all other countries) Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST Saturday-Sunday 10am-4pm PST / 1pm-7pm EST
Customer (****)
01/28/2010 07:35 PM
So basically all one-handed weapons can be wielded in two hands, but only Versatile weapons get a mechanical benefit when used in two hands, correct?
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
I'd also like to point out that "as" is present in both "used as" and "counted as", so I think it's best we focus on "used" versus "counted" rather than "as".
I already pulled up the difference between used/counted in post 167. And since as is present in both cases, it must be addressed as well since as can change the function or character that the item has, regardless of the first word.
If a versatile weapon has a different purpose or way that it can be used, when you add the word as, its function has clearly changed. A weapon being used as an implement is being used for a different purpose and functions as one for all intents and purposes.
The same applies for the word counted,. A heavy thrown weapon is considered to be a ranged weapon and since it is followed by the word "as" it functions as one when it is counted/considered to be a ranged weapon.
I really don't see much of a difference at all.
USED
• a purpose for or way in which something can be used : the herb has various culinary uses.
Counted
• consider (someone or something) to possess a specified quality or fulfill a specified role
AS
preposition
1 used to refer to the function or character that someone or something has : he got a job as a cook | they were treated as foreigners | it came as a shock | as a U.S. adviser, he is a target for terrorism.
I think if you're going to pull up Swordmages, it's interesting to note that it's specifically stated that they can use Heavy Blade, Light Blade weapons as implements. Because they can use these weapons as implements, while they cannot add their proficiency bonus to the attack rolls of their implement attacks, they can still add their weapons' enhancement bonus to attack rolls and damage, as well as take advantage of their weapons' properties and powers (as stated in the rulebooks).
Again, there is no prerequisite for benefiting from objects as implements other than being able to use them as implements, even if normally they are not counted as one.
Ok here's an example to prove otherwise.
No where in the books does it say or specify that a swordmage can use a longsword as a ranged weapon (unless, if you use it as an improvised ranged weapon).
Thus, A swordmage can't use a longsword as a heavy thrown weapon. But he can if he uses a farbond spellblade (AV2 p.18) Are you saying that when a swordmage uses his farbond spellblade longsword as a thrown weapon, it isn't considered to be one since it doesn't have the word "count" or "treated"? Or would you say he can't use it as a ranged weapon since his class description does not ever mention it?
And again, while for some it might be implied that using Versatile weapons two-handed makes them two-handed, where is it specifically stated? If Holy Avenger, Unforgettable Cudgel, and other non-Holy Symbol implements specifically state that they can be used as holy symbols, and you benefit from objects under the Implement (Holy Symbol) category by being able to use them as holy symbols, and thus you benefit from them, there should be an entry where Versatile weapons used two-handed allows them to benefit from being wielded two-handed, right?
I agree that they probably should say it more clearly in the versatile entry, but for some reason it is said on page 215 of the phb, kinda like heavy/light thrown properties aren't really described well enough in their entry either, rather on p.215.
The entry specifically states that you can use Versatile weapons two-handed (it does not state that you use Versatile weapons as two-handed weapons; there's a big difference in that). If you use it two-handed and you aren't a small creature, you get +1 damage.
This is a weak argument since no where does it state in the heavy/light thrown entry that they count as ranged weapons. Are you going to say a handaxe isn't counted as a ranged weapon just because the entry on heavy/light weapons specifically doesn't say so?
I would hope not, therefore, you must go to page 215 to get more information on how heavy/light thrown weapons work. If you do it with heavy/thrown weapons, why wouldn't you do it for versatile weapons? the portion where it says they can be used as two-handed weapons is on that page, and if you want put a blind-eye on that section and say "oh it doesn't mention versatile weapons specifically, therefore, it doesn't exist or apply in this matter" then you are intentionally disregarding an obvious description of the versatile property.
Lastly, even if you just used only the versatile entry, it still states "used two-handed". This means we can assume that its purpose or way of being used can be either: one-handed or two-handed, which are both weapon classifications as detailed on page 215 of the phb.
Until they make an errata stating they're usable as two-handed weapons, or they are counted as two-handed weapons, then they're not. Not in RPGA-legal games, at least.
I can't speak for the RPGA rules since I don't play in it. However, until they make an errata stating that they are not usable as two-handed weapons then they can be, considering the vast amount of evidence proving that they can.
OFF-TOPIC: I know CS doesn't bear any weight in this topic, but I was curious if my assumption that one-handed weapons could be used two-handed on a general basis was correct (and I wanted to confirm (again) if Versatile weapons counted as two-handed weapons when used two-handed). Apparently, it's assumed that among all one-handed weapons, only Versatile weapons had a hilt big enough to fit two hands, and thus gave a mechanical benefit for being wielded two-handed... but because there's no mechanical benefit for wielding most one-handed weapons two-handed [except maybe for having it work with Barbarian powers (hehehe)], if the DM allows the use of non-Versatile weapons two-handed, it's still good.
Perhaps it can be assumed that versatile weapons are the only one-handed weapons that can be held in two hands, but the rules just say that only they "keep good grip on them with two hands", which grants the benefits of extra damage and being used as a two-handed weapon. No where does it say you can't get a bad grip on a shortsword and suddenly be unable to attack with it. All it says is that one-handed weapons are light enough or balanced enough to be used in one hand." It doesn't say "one-handed weapons can never be used in two hands." Only two-handed weapons have the specific restriction of "too heavy or unbalanced to use without two hands".
Another example of why it can be allowed is by using a similar example which is vertical teleportation. Since no where in the rules it says you can teleport mid-air, doesn't mean you can't. This was clarified by a wotc member shown here, where he is basically saying that you can teleport mid-air since there is no restriction detailed in the rules preventing it. Thus, the same logic can apply for using a one-handed weapon in two hands. So if you want to use a sickle to use howling strike, go right ahead.
Page 219: Range: Weapons that can strike at a distance have range. The number before the slash indicates the normal range (in squares) for an attack. The number after the slash indicates the long range for an attack; an attack at long range takes a –2 penalty to the attack roll. Squares beyond the second number are considered to be out of range and can’t be targeted with this weapon. If a melee weapon has a range entry, it can be thrown and belongs to either the light thrown or the heavy thrown category. An entry of “—” indicates that the weapon can’t be used at range.
(Bold mine)
This entry, combined with the weapons table of pp. 218-219, makes it possible by RAW - ignoring any possible fluff misinterpretation from page 215 - to allow heavy and light thrown weapons to be used as ranged weapons (unless you interpret the word "thrown" differently).
Page 217: 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.
Compared to the likely "fluff" of page 215, the one that is most probably related to versatile weapons, which states:
Page 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.
Which is more specific, the one in 217 and 219, or the one in 215?
Now, regarding the Swordmage vs Farbond Spellblade enchantment: The Farbond Spellblade enchantment specifically grants the weapon the heavy thrown property, with 5/10 range. Thus, it is not considered to be an improvised ranged attack when using it for ranged attacks.
Property: This weapon can be used as a heavy thrown weapon with a range of 5/10, If you have the Swordbond class feature, you can call this weapon to your hand from up to a mile away.
Even if we differentiate "used as" from "counted as", the fact remains that you can use it as a heavy thrown weapon, whose entry states:
Heavy Thrown: You hurl a thrown weapon from your hand, rather than using it to loose a projectile. A ranged basic attack with a heavy thrown weapon uses your Strength instead of your Dexterity for the attack and damage rolls.
So, assuming that "used as" and "counted as" are the same, you still use your Strength instead of your Dexterity for ranged basic attacks with heavy thrown weapons, and thus you can use your Farbond Spellblade enchanted longsword for ranged basic attacks.
Even if you interpret the use of a weapon as a heavy thrown weapon being different from it being counted as one, then the same rule applies: you use STR instead of DEX for determining ranged basic attack rolls and damage with it, since it now has a range of 5/10 (and thus can be thrown, and used for ranged attacks). Simple as that.
- - - - -
I can't speak for the RPGA rules since I don't play in it. However, until they make an errata stating that they are not usable as two-handed weapons then they can be, considering the vast amount of evidence proving that they can.
What "vast amount of evidence"? At least heavy/light thrown weaponry have a rule that mechanically allows them to be used as ranged weapons (see "Reading the Weapon Tables", PHB 219), and if we consider the fact that nowhere in the Versatile property itself does it state that it is usable as a two-handed weapon, but rather that it can be used two-handed, and if used as such, non-small creatures get additional damage from it.
Page 215: Finally, weapons are classified as either onehanded or two-handed. A one-handed weapon is light enough or balanced enough to be used in one hand. A two-handed weapon is too heavy or unbalanced to use without two hands. Bows and some other weapons require two hands because of their construction.
Perhaps it can be assumed that versatile weapons are the only one-handed weapons that can be held in two hands, but the rules just say that only they "keep good grip on them with two hands", which grants the benefits of extra damage and being used as a two-handed weapon. No where does it say you can't get a bad grip on a shortsword and suddenly be unable to attack with it. All it says is that one-handed weapons are light enough or balanced enough to be used in one hand." It doesn't say "one-handed weapons can never be used in two hands." Only two-handed weapons have the specific restriction of "too heavy or unbalanced to use without two hands".
Another example of why it can be allowed is by using a similar example which is vertical teleportation. Since no where in the rules it says you can teleport mid-air, doesn't mean you can't. This was clarified by a wotc member shown here, where he is basically saying that you can teleport mid-air since there is no restriction detailed in the rules preventing it. Thus, the same logic can apply for using a one-handed weapon in two hands. So if you want to use a sickle to use howling strike, go right ahead.
I'd definitely agree with you on the fact that you can use your one-handed weapon two-handed, regardless of the property it has; there's no real mechanical benefit to it, except perhaps the loophole of barbarian at-wills requiring only weapons wielded in two hands as a prerequisite.
But again Versatile weapons, by the keyword itself, only grants you a mechanical +1 damage bonus to your damage. Which isn't really that bad...
Longsword w/o Power Attack + one-handed: 2-16 w/ Power Attack + two-handed: 8-23
Greatsword w/o Power Attack: 2-20 w/ Power Attack: 11-29
CharOp-wise it's probably not optimal damage-wise to go for Longsword, but still, 8-23 vs 11-29 is a damage difference of 3-6, or 4.5 average, by epic tie... and you're trading that 3-6 damage for the ability to do something with your free hand.
That's with 2[W] powers I reckon. What if we went 7[W]?
Longsword w/o Power Attack + one-handed: 7-56 w/ Power Attack + two-handed: 14-63
Greatsword w/o Power Attack: 7-70 w/ Power Attack: 16-79
So a 7[W] power with a greatsword attack, amplified by Power Attack, is the same damage output as a 9[W] power with a longsword attack (also amplified by power attack). Now, what if the Versatile keyword allowed longsword weapons to be counted as two-handed weapons?
Longsword w/o Power Attack + one-handed: 7-56 w/ Power Attack + two-handed: 17-66
Greatsword w/o Power Attack: 7-70 w/ Power Attack: 16-79
Is the extra 3 damage to your Versatile weapon at epic really that worthwhile considering that you really are much better off with a larger dice non-versatile two-handed weapon anyway (66 vs 79 = 13 damage difference; even if you made longswords two-handed weapons when wielded two-handed, that's still an average of 41.5 vs 47.5, 3 points higher, but still 6 points average behind)?
[ If you ask me, the considering that the intent is that you deal more damage when wielding Versatile weapons in two hands, that is definitely fulfilled by its current wording. Plus, technically Power Attack + two-handed usage of Versatile weapons is almost as good as Power Attack with two-handed weapons (assuming both have the same d8 damage dice): at heroic tier, a d8 versatile + using it two-handed would give d8 + 3, while a regular d8 two-handed would give d8 + 3, while at epic tier, a d8 versatile + using it two-handed would give it d8 + 7, only two points less than a regular d8 two-handed, which would be d8 + 9 ]
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
Range: Weapons that can strike at a distance have range. The number before the slash indicates the normal range (in squares) for an attack. The number after the slash indicates the long range for an attack; an attack at long range takes a –2 penalty to the attack roll. Squares beyond the second number are considered to be out of range and can’t be targeted with this weapon. If a melee weapon has a range entry, it can be thrown and belongs to either the light thrown or the heavy thrown category. An entry of “—” indicates that the weapon can’t be used at range.
(Bold mine)
This entry, combined with the weapons table of pp. 218-219, makes it possible by RAW - ignoring any possible fluff misinterpretation from page 215 - to allow heavy and light thrown weapons to be used as ranged weapons (unless you interpret the word "thrown" differently).
Correct, this just emphasizes even more that property entries are enhanced or clarified in other sections (in this case page 215 and 219), rather than the actual entry telling the whole story.
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.
Compared to the likely "fluff" of page 215, the one that is most probably related to versatile weapons, which states:
Page 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.
Which is more specific, the one in 217 and 219, or the one in 215?
To be precise, the entries for versatile and heavy/thrown weapons are as not explicit as they could be. Are there other rules that clarify or are more specific in nature concerning these items? Yes. While the text you are quoting might be more specific regarding heavy/light thrown weapons, you cannot deny that page 215 is talking about versatile weapons.
Now, regarding the Swordmage vs Farbond Spellblade enchantment: The Farbond Spellblade enchantment specifically grants the weapon the heavy thrown property, with 5/10 range. Thus, it is not considered to be an improvised ranged attack when using it for ranged attacks.
I was talking about a normal longsword under normal circumstances can't be used as a ranged weapon unless maybe if it was used as an improvised ranged weapon, with the Farbond Spellblade being an exception to this statement (and potentially others). Also, the property does not grant the weapon a range of 5/10. It only grants the range when it used as a ranged weapon. This is because the property does not say "this weapon now has a range of 5/10" or "this weapon has the heavy thrown property with a range of 5/10"
Even if we differentiate "used as" from "counted as", the fact remains that you can use it as a heavy thrown weapon, whose entry states:
Heavy Thrown: You hurl a thrown weapon from your hand, rather than using it to loose a projectile. A ranged basic attack with a heavy thrown weapon uses your Strength instead of your Dexterity for the attack and damage rolls.
So, assuming that "used as" and "counted as" are the same, you still use your Strength instead of your Dexterity for ranged basic attacks with heavy thrown weapons, and thus you can use your Farbond Spellblade enchanted longsword for ranged basic attacks.
Even if you interpret the use of a weapon as a heavy thrown weapon being different from it being counted as one, then the same rule applies: you use STR instead of DEX for determining ranged basic attack rolls and damage with it, since it now has a range of 5/10 (and thus can be thrown, and used for ranged attacks). Simple as that.
So, are you saying/agreeing that "used as" and "counted as" are pretty much the same in regards to considering items as different things?
What "vast amount of evidence"? At least heavy/light thrown weaponry have a rule that mechanically allows them to be used as ranged weapons (see "Reading the Weapon Tables", PHB 219), and if we consider the fact that nowhere in the Versatile property itself does it state that it is usable as a two-handed weapon, but rather that it can be used two-handed, and if used as such, non-small creatures get additional damage from it.
So let me get this straight, you are stating this: The versatile property on does not specifically state that it is usable as a two-handed weapon therefore it can't. Also you're stating that Heavy/light thrown weapons have rules that allow them to be used as ranged weapons. Correct?
In response, You DO realize that the actual entries for heavy/light thrown properties do not state or have any rule that they can used in ranged attacks. Sure, they might infer that they can be used with ranged basic attacks, but it isn't very specific. This would mean a ranger couldn't use a handaxe as a ranged weapon with twin strike, but could with ranged basic attacks. The same thing applies to reach property. It says "You can attack enemies that are 2 squares away from you", yet page 220 says "when a creature that has a natural reach uses a reach weapon, the weapon increases the creature's natural reach by 1 square."
This means if you had a natural reach of 2, a reach weapon would allow you to attack 3 squares away rather than the 2 specified in the entry. Or if you had a natural reach of 0, the reach weapon would be up to 1 square away.
It just seems to me that you are imposing yet another double standard, by looking at other sections of the chapter for heavy/thrown weapons yet you don't want to hold yourself to do the same for the versatile property. It is readily apparent that other sections of the chapter explain how the heavy/light thrown, versatile and reach properties work. So if you look elsewhere in the chapter for property explanations or more rules concerning them, you should apply the same standard for all of them.
I'd definitely agree with you on the fact that you can use your one-handed weapon two-handed, regardless of the property it has; there's no real mechanical benefit to it, except perhaps the loophole of barbarian at-wills requiring only weapons wielded in two hands as a prerequisite.
But again Versatile weapons, by the keyword itself, only grants you a mechanical +1 damage bonus to your damage. Which isn't really that bad...
If you go by the logic of just reading the property descriptions and nothing else, reach weapons only can be used up to 2 squares away and heavy/thrown weapons can't be used as ranged weapons except in perhaps basic ranged attacks. Thank goodness that isn't the case.
I was talking about a normal longsword under normal circumstances can't be used as a ranged weapon unless maybe if it was used as an improvised ranged weapon, with the Farbond Spellblade being an exception to this statement (and potentially others). Also, the property does not grant the weapon a range of 5/10. It only grants the range when it used as a ranged weapon. This is because the property does not say "this weapon now has a range of 5/10" or "this weapon has the heavy thrown property with a range of 5/10"
In that case then no, Swordmages can definitely not use longswords as ranged weapons unless they have the Farbond Spellblade enchantment or are used as improvised ranged weapons (and I do believe that the very reason why the Farbond Spellblade enchantment was created in the first place is to offset the fact that there's a very limited selection of blades you can actually chuck).
So, are you saying/agreeing that "used as" and "counted as" are pretty much the same in regards to considering items as different things?
Only if it's specifically stated as such; using a one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon doesn't make them two-handed weapons unless it's stated that when you use them as two-handed they count as two-handed weapons. The term "use as" doesn't necessarily make them "count as"... although it's pretty clear that the PHB makes a lot of situational benefits for simply using things as X, rather than having them count as X.
So let me get this straight, you are stating this: The versatile property on does not specifically state that it is usable as a two-handed weapon therefore it can't. Also you're stating that Heavy/light thrown weapons have rules that allow them to be used as ranged weapons. Correct?
Pretty much. We are talking RAW, right?
In response, You DO realize that the actual entries for heavy/light thrown properties do not state or have any rule that they can used in ranged attacks. Sure, they might infer that they can be used with ranged basic attacks, but it isn't very specific. This would mean a ranger couldn't use a handaxe as a ranged weapon with twin strike, but could with ranged basic attacks. The same thing applies to reach property. It says "You can attack enemies that are 2 squares away from you", yet page 220 says "when a creature that has a natural reach uses a reach weapon, the weapon increases the creature's natural reach by 1 square."
This means if you had a natural reach of 2, a reach weapon would allow you to attack 3 squares away rather than the 2 specified in the entry. Or if you had a natural reach of 0, the reach weapon would be up to 1 square away.
Specifics beat general; it's specifically stated that, and I quote, "An entry of “—” indicates that the weapon can’t be used at range.", so all weapons that have the x/y entry can be used at range, and thus can be used for ranged weapon attacks (since they fulfill the "ranged weapon" prerequisite, see PHB p.56). The "heavy thrown" and "light thrown" entries specifically state what happens when you use them with your range basic attacks, but since Ranger ranged powers often key off their DEX, their powers bypass the general rule of the heavy thrown and light thrown categories, thus you can have a low STR handaxe-throwing ranger and still hit hard and accurately.
As for your point on reach weapons: The weapon tables assume a Medium wielder, which includes almost all player characters. Characters and creatures that are smaller or larger than Medium have special rules.
So again, specifics beat general: the general rule is, assuming a medium creature's natural reach is 1 (meaning adjacent to him), reach weapons allow him to target 2 squares. Now, if the creature in question has a larger natural reach than 1, then reach weapons appropriate for the given creature would grant him a +1 to reach.
Remember, D&D does have the idea "general rules, many exceptions", so potentials for "double standards" is probably going to be common sight. Double weapons, stout property already violate the general ideas of how one-handed and two-handed weapons are treated, let alone the other properties including Versatile.
It just seems to me that you are imposing yet another double standard, by looking at other sections of the chapter for heavy/thrown weapons yet you don't want to hold yourself to do the same for the versatile property. It is readily apparent that other sections of the chapter explain how the heavy/light thrown, versatile and reach properties work. So if you look elsewhere in the chapter for property explanations or more rules concerning them, you should apply the same standard for all of them.
If you're so knowledgeable on the rules pertaining to the Versatile keyword, I'm sure you wouldn't have trouble enlightening us on the other chapters that discuss this keyword in detail.
If you go by the logic of just reading the property descriptions and nothing else, reach weapons only can be used up to 2 squares away and heavy/thrown weapons can't be used as ranged weapons except in perhaps basic ranged attacks. Thank goodness that isn't the case.
And if we look at the disclaimer regarding the weapons table, the write-up on how to read the power, and taking everything in context, we'd probably have less reason to debate on the matter, right?
In any case, this seems more like a rather time-wasting effort on rules lawyering than anything.
EDIT: Off-topic... they really should fix/get rid of that "styles" thing in the WYSIWYG HTML-based replies of theirs, it's getting mighty irritating...
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
In that case then no, Swordmages can definitely not use longswords as ranged weapons unless they have the Farbond Spellblade enchantment or are used as improvised ranged weapons (and I do believe that the very reason why the Farbond Spellblade enchantment was created in the first place is to offset the fact that there's a very limited selection of blades you can actually chuck).
Only if it's specifically stated as such; using a one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon doesn't make them two-handed weapons unless it's stated that when you use them as two-handed they count as two-handed weapons. The term "use as" doesn't necessarily make them "count as"... although it's pretty clear that the PHB makes a lot of situational benefits for simply using things as X, rather than having them count as X.
So you're contradicting yourself yet again? My example of the farbond spellblade does not make it a heavy thrown weapon and no where is it stated that it counts as one. The farbond spellblade allows a situational benefit, which lets you use it as a thrown weapon. I used this example on purpose to make my point. Since you agree that a longsword farbond spellblade can be used as a heavy thrown weapon, and even though it doesn't mention it is actually counted, treated or considered as one, you still do. As a result, You must hold the same standard for the versatile property since page 215 explains that it can be used as a two-handed weapon when held in two hands. How hard is that to comprehend or admit?
Specifics beat general; it's specifically stated that, and I quote, "An entry of “—” indicates that the weapon can’t be used at range.", so all weapons that have the x/y entry can be used at range, and thus can be used for ranged weapon attacks (since they fulfill the "ranged weapon" prerequisite, see PHB p.56). The "heavy thrown" and "light thrown" entries specifically state what happens when you use them with your range basic attacks, but since Ranger ranged powers often key off their DEX, their powers bypass the general rule of the heavy thrown and light thrown categories, thus you can have a low STR handaxe-throwing ranger and still hit hard and accurately.
You missed the entire point. There isn't no specific rule in the heavy/light thrown property entry that says they are counted as or considered ranged weapons. Stop quoting rules text that are not from the actual property unless you apply the same logic for versatile weapons, otherwise, I can't take you seriously anymore.
The weapon tables assume a Medium wielder, which includes almost all player characters. Characters and creatures that are smaller or larger than Medium have special rules.
Since you have been clinging onto your weak argument that versatile doesn't mention anything that they can be used as two-handed weapons in its entry, you must hold yourself to the same standard, meaning reach weapons only have a reach of 2. But since you are quoting text that is not located in the property, you MUST do the same for versatile, or you are imposing a double standard once again.
If you're so knowledgeable on the rules pertaining to the Versatile keyword, I'm sure you wouldn't have trouble enlightening us on the other chapters that discuss this keyword in detail.
Have you not been reading or understanding anything in this thread? I'm sorry, but if you haven't gotten it by now I can only refer you to go back and read it again, since I'd be repeating myself yet again.
And if we look at the disclaimer regarding the weapons table, the write-up on how to read the power, and taking everything in context, we'd probably have less reason to debate on the matter, right?
Meaning you agree that reading just the entry for a weapon property such as the heavy/light thrown, versatile and reach properties do not explain everything on how they should be run?
In any case, this seems more like a rather time-wasting effort on rules lawyering than anything.
Its only a waste of time if you believe it is. And as for rule-lawyering, at least I wasn't contradicting myself like you were. You should try not to do so if you are debating subjects as it makes your argument look invalid or flawed. Which to be honest it is flawed and as a result, I cannot agree with your position in its entirety. And if you wonder why, its because of your logic having a lack of conviction.
You should try not to do so if you are debating subjects as it makes your argument look invalid or flawed. Which to be honest it is flawed and as a result, I cannot agree with your position in its entirety. And if you wonder why, its because of your logic having a lack of conviction.