You have yet to provide anything outside of page 215's likely fluff text pertaining to Versatile weapons being two-handed weapons when used two-handed. Please, enlighten us why RAW agrees with your statement, so we could be done with it. After all, you did mention yourself that the rules overwhelmingly consider Versatile weapons as two-handed, right?
Instead of saying that I'm putting double standards and that Versatile weapons SHOULD be considered as two-handed weapons when used two-handed, why don't you put the book, page number, and specific entry (if you could provide a more updated entry via Compendium, even better), that specifically states that Versatile weapons are treated as two-handed weapons when used as such.
If you tire of repeating yourself, maybe a single post where all the rules that support your claim ought to be enough. I myself tire of the continuous "you're setting double standards, this should be this because this is the way it's written" aspect of this conversation, so if you're in the right and I'm in the wrong, what specific entries outside of page 215 specifically state that 1) you use Versatile weapons as two-handed weapons, and/or 2) using Versatile weapons two-handed lets them count as two-handed weapons?
Mind you, it should state, not imply, that either wielding it two-handed makes it used as a two-handed weapon, or it's counted as a two-handed weapon when wielded as such.
- - - - - Rules as Written is very much different from Written Rules as Interpreted and from Rules as Implemented. From the way it's written page 217, it's one-handed regardless of how you wield it. The way the written rules are interpreted may vary, but again, as implemented, it's still DM discretion that determines whether or not the Versatile keyword is to be overruled.
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.
You have yet to provide anything outside of page 215's likely fluff text pertaining to Versatile weapons being two-handed weapons when used two-handed. Please, enlighten us why RAW agrees with your statement, so we could be done with it. After all, you did mention yourself that the rules overwhelmingly consider Versatile weapons as two-handed, right?
Instead of saying that I'm putting double standards and that Versatile weapons SHOULD be considered as two-handed weapons when used two-handed, why don't you put the book, page number, and specific entry (if you could provide a more updated entry via Compendium, even better), that specifically states that Versatile weapons are treated as two-handed weapons when used as such.
If you tire of repeating yourself, maybe a single post where all the rules that support your claim ought to be enough. I myself tire of the continuous "you're setting double standards, this should be this because this is the way it's written" aspect of this conversation, so if you're in the right and I'm in the wrong, what specific entries outside of page 215 specifically state that 1) you use Versatile weapons as two-handed weapons, and/or 2) using Versatile weapons two-handed lets them count as two-handed weapons?
Mind you, it should state, not imply, that either wielding it two-handed makes it used as a two-handed weapon, or it's counted as a two-handed weapon when wielded as such.
- - - - - Rules as Written is very much different from Written Rules as Interpreted and from Rules as Implemented. From the way it's written page 217, it's one-handed regardless of how you wield it. The way the written rules are interpreted may vary, but again, as implemented, it's still DM discretion that determines whether or not the Versatile keyword is to be overruled.
First off, why should I ignore page 215 at all? The only reason you wish to ignore it is because it disproves your entire argument. Could it be more specific that it is refering to versatile weapons? Probably. But just because it doesn't mention it, does not mean that it isn't. Is it talking about versatile weapons? YES. If you disagree with this statement, you are obviously in serious denial. You cannot prove that the section isn't talking about versatile weapons, and as such, any argument you attempt to conjure up against it will be invalid. As a result, since page 215 is talking about versatile weapons and it is a written rule, I know that versatile weapons can be used as two-handed weapons by RAW.
Secondly, the versatile property specifically states that it is a one-handed weapon that can be used two-handed. This means it is a weapon that can be used as either classification, be it one-handed or two-handed. This statement is further bolstered by the fact that p.215 supports it just like other weapon properties are supported by other sections in the chapter such as; p.220 for reach, p.215 & 219 for heavy/thrown and p.215 for off-hand. Feel free to keep your interpretation, but since you cannot disprove mine at all, it stands as a valid interpretation by raw due to the existence of page 215 referring to two-handed as a weapon classification and allowing certain one-handed weapons to be used as two-handed weapons. So unless you can somehow re-write the books and erase page 215 and write that usage of something means it never is considered to be whatever it is being used as. (which penalizes many examples as I previously mentioned in the thread), I believe we do not have much more to discuss on the matter.
You have yet to provide anything outside of page 215's likely fluff text pertaining to Versatile weapons being two-handed weapons when used two-handed. Please, enlighten us why RAW agrees with your statement, so we could be done with it. After all, you did mention yourself that the rules overwhelmingly consider Versatile weapons as two-handed, right?
Instead of saying that I'm putting double standards and that Versatile weapons SHOULD be considered as two-handed weapons when used two-handed, why don't you put the book, page number, and specific entry (if you could provide a more updated entry via Compendium, even better), that specifically states that Versatile weapons are treated as two-handed weapons when used as such.
If you tire of repeating yourself, maybe a single post where all the rules that support your claim ought to be enough. I myself tire of the continuous "you're setting double standards, this should be this because this is the way it's written" aspect of this conversation, so if you're in the right and I'm in the wrong, what specific entries outside of page 215 specifically state that 1) you use Versatile weapons as two-handed weapons, and/or 2) using Versatile weapons two-handed lets them count as two-handed weapons?
Mind you, it should state, not imply, that either wielding it two-handed makes it used as a two-handed weapon, or it's counted as a two-handed weapon when wielded as such.
- - - - - Rules as Written is very much different from Written Rules as Interpreted and from Rules as Implemented. From the way it's written page 217, it's one-handed regardless of how you wield it. The way the written rules are interpreted may vary, but again, as implemented, it's still DM discretion that determines whether or not the Versatile keyword is to be overruled.
First off, why should I ignore page 215 at all? The only reason you wish to ignore it is because it disproves your entire argument. Could it be more specific that it is refering to versatile weapons? Probably. But just because it doesn't mention it, does not mean that it isn't. Is it talking about versatile weapons? YES. If you disagree with this statement, you are obviously in serious denial. You cannot prove that the section isn't talking about versatile weapons, and as such, any argument you attempt to conjure up against it will be invalid. As a result, since page 215 is talking about versatile weapons and it is a written rule, I know that versatile weapons can be used as two-handed weapons by RAW.
Secondly, the versatile property specifically states that it is a one-handed weapon that can be used two-handed. This means it is a weapon that can be used as either classification, be it one-handed or two-handed. This statement is further bolstered by the fact that p.215 supports it just like other weapon properties are supported by other sections in the chapter such as; p.220 for reach, p.215 & 219 for heavy/thrown and p.215 for off-hand. Feel free to keep your interpretation, but since you cannot disprove mine at all, it stands as a valid interpretation by raw due to the existence of page 215 referring to two-handed as a weapon classification and allowing certain one-handed weapons to be used as two-handed weapons. So unless you can somehow re-write the books, I believe we do not have much more to discuss on the matter.
No it is to be ignored because it's repeatedly cited over and over again as the reason why the belief that Versatile weapons should be counted as two-handed weapons when you clearly stated that there's evidence in the PHB outside of page 215 that supports your claim.
Your exact words are:
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.
So, where is this vast amount evidence? What is your direct reference outside of page 215 of the PHB that clearly states that it can be counted as a two-handed weapon when used two-handed? All I can see are assumptions made from what is written in just one line of the PHB, which could be as easy a clerical error as assumptions solely based on the entry in page 217 (At least other things, like reach and thrown weapons, have the weapons table and "how to read a power" that support it)... but then again, the page 217 entry has better mechanical support from page 219, since page 219 refers to the table that mechanically describes each weapon (and from the rule-interpreting perspective, the tables in pages 218-219 are a far more reliable source).
As for the Vertical Teleporting shenanigan, it's not exactly the best example to compare it to the Versatile property, because pre-errata there was the clause that you could teleport into an area you could see, and you could see the sky, so it's a simple enough logic that you could teleport towards it, as far as your teleport distance could allow it [and since there was no restriction on forced teleportation, it worked via RAW with teleporting powers]; the errata actually weakened Vertical Teleportation by granting forced teleport recepients a save to negate the teleport.
The Versatile property doesn't have it as favorable a concept, because the rules of the Versatile property itself specifically states that when used two-handed you do more damage, but doesn't state that you actually treat it, nor use it, as a two-handed weapon. Compared to Heavy and Light Thrown weapons, which have a range given to them and thus the Range section of "reading the weapon tables" applies, and the Reach weapons, who normally have either a Reach 2 (for most creatures, as listed in page 217) or Reach Natural +1 (for creatures that actually have a natural reach mentioned in their entry [so yes a creature with a natural reach of 0 would, with a whip, get a reach of 1]), the only thing going for the argument that Versatile weapons could be used as a two-handed weapon is more of an extrapolation of the line in page 215 rather than the actual rule on Versatile property in page 217.
EDIT: You yourself stated that all one-handed weapons can be used two-handed because there is nothing in the rules that state otherwise. Well, where in the rules are Versatile weapons considered as, used as, treated as, or counted as two-handed weapons when used two-handed? Just one line of the PHB page 215, which tackles categories and not properties? Or is it "it's not in the rules that you don't consider it as a two-handed weapon, but you're using it two-handed, and it's written in the PHB that you're using them as a two-handed weapon**, it makes more sense, so it is."?
** even if that line mentioned doesn't directly pertain to the Versatile property, and an immediate inference can be made only due to the similarity in wording.
Again, if this is an argument on RAI, then it's DM discretion that would say yes or no. If it's RAW, the Versatile property says you benefit from using it two-handed, not as a two-handed weapon. If it's Written Rules as Interpreted, well again it's the DM who has the final say.
If you ask me, the last two paragraphs of the Weapon Categories section in page 215 pretty much says that while all two-handed weapons are so unwieldly for one-handed use that you have to use in two hands, there are different kinds of one-handed weapons -- some small enough for you to use in the off-hand without trouble, some big enough to be used in a similar fashion as two-handed weapons -- but they're still one-handed weapons nonetheless.
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.
No it is to be ignored because it's repeatedly cited over and over again as the reason why the belief that Versatile weapons should be counted as two-handed weapons when you clearly stated that there's evidence in the PHB outside of page 215 that supports your claim. Your exact words are:
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.
I was refering to items being used as other ones. Meaning, if page 215 says they can be used as two-handed weapons, we can infer from THE OVERWHELMING evidence backing up every other example in the game of an item being used as something else means it essentially is considered the same thing as the usage permitted. You can see this support by the entire list of items I placed on post and #174 which also should be noted for weapons used as implements and vice-versa (staffs). "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, where is this vast amount evidence? What is your direct reference outside of page 215 that clearly states that it can be counted as a two-handed weapon when used two-handed? All I can see are assumptions made from what is written in just one line of the PHB, which could be as easy a clerical error as assumptions solely based on the entry in page 217 (At least other things, like reach and thrown weapons, have the weapons table and "how to read a power" that support it)... but then again, page 217 has page 219 as a more solid reference, since page 219 refers to the table that mechanically describes each weapon's group and category.
It is only your opinion that it is a clerical error. The fact is, it says that such weapons are used as two-handed weapons. Which is obviously speaking of versatile weapons. Therefore, this fact shoots down any rebuttal you can come up with.
As for the Vertical Teleporting shenanigan, it's not exactly the best example to compare it to the Versatile property, because pre-errata there was the clause that you could teleport into an area you could see, and you could see the sky, so it's a simple enough logic that you could teleport towards it, as far as your teleport distance could allow it [and since there was no restriction on forced teleportation, it worked via RAW with teleporting powers]; the errata actually weakened Vertical Teleportation by granting forced teleport recepients a save to negate the teleport.
However, pre-eratta there was this statement made here
Q: Will there be an update for forced teleportation off cliffs, etc.?
A: Yes, forced teleportation will function as other forced movement (providing a saving throw before teleporting a creature off that cliff).
Such statement says that forced teleportation will function as forced movement and since forced movement doesn't permit vertical movement, it could mean that vertical teleportation wouldn't be allowed.
The Versatile property doesn't have it as favorable a concept, because the rules of the Versatile property itself specifically states that when used two-handed you do more damage, but doesn't state that you actually treat it, nor use it, as a two-handed weapon. Compared to Heavy and Light Thrown weapons, which have a range given to them and thus the Range section of "reading the weapon tables" applies, and the Reach weapons, who normally have either a Reach 2 (for most creatures, as listed in page 217) or Reach Natural +1 (for creatures that actually have a natural reach mentioned in their entry [so yes a creature with a natural reach of 0 would, with a whip, get a reach of 1]), the only thing going for the argument that Versatile weapons could be used as a two-handed weapon is more of an extrapolation of the line in page 215 rather than the actual rule on Versatile property in page 217.
Horrible comparison yet again, since the heavy/light thrown properties do not list a range nor are they said to be treated or counted as ranged weapons in their actual entry on page 217.Now this is why I cannot take your arguments seriously, you blatantly stick to just page 217 for versatile and are choosing to ignore page 215. Yet you run around for heavy/light thrown weapons on other pages (219,217) and say this is how it works.
Unlike you, I examine every potential rule and description to determine my judgement about the matter rather than stick to just the single property entry like you are doing for versatile while making exceptions for other properties, essentially contradicting your fervent argument that "The property doesn't say it!" If that is how you plan on doing things, either man up and apply that logic for all properties by ignoring every other rule mentioning heavy/light thrown weapons and see where that takes your rampant interpretation. Or accept the fact that p.215 supplements and describes the versatile property just like the other properties detailed in other places.
EDIT: You yourself stated that all one-handed weapons can be used two-handed because there is nothing in the rules that state otherwise. Well, where in the rules are Versatile weapons considered as, used as, treated as, or counted as two-handed weapons when used two-handed? Just one line of the PHB page 215, which tackles categories and not properties? Or is it "it's not in the rules that you don't consider it as a two-handed weapon, but you're using it two-handed, and it's written in the PHB that you're using them as a two-handed weapon**, it makes more sense, so it is."?
** even if that line mentioned doesn't directly pertain to the Versatile property, and an immediate inference can be made only due to the similarity in wording.
Again, if this is an argument on RAI, then it's DM discretion that would say yes or no. If it's RAW, the Versatile property says you benefit from using it two-handed, not as a two-handed weapon. If it's Written Rules as Interpreted, well again it's the DM who has the final say.
Edit in response to your edit: Does page 215 not mention or infer to the heavy/light thrown, off-hand and versatile properties? Yes it does. Using an item doesn't change what it is. But using an item as something else, changes how its considered. Thus a longsword is a one-handed weapon with the versatile property. When used as an implement, its considered to be one. If the longsword is used in two hands, it is considered to be a two-handed weapon. If it was a farbond spellblade, it is considered to be a heavy thrown weapon with a range of 5/10. You can't prove this otherwise, and since you have agreed in specific examples that you concur with this notion you can't argue against it unless you change your interpretation again. Here are the quotes: Thus if you agree with those examples, how can you not agree that versatile weapons being used as two-handed weapons are not granted said classification?
Again, from the way the entry on Holy Symbols in the PHB is written, if you are a member of a class who can use holy symbols as implements and are able to use X as a holy symbol implement, even if it is normally not counted as one, specifics beat general, and thus you can use the Holy Avenger as a Holy Symbol implement, and thus benefit from Implement Expertise (Holy Symbol) as well as Implement Expertise (Heavy Blade).
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'm looking for a page where I could quantify your argument as valid, outside of page 215. I'm not closing myself to the possibility of having Versatile weapons counted as two-handed weapons but as we are talking about the weapon property, how can I make a substantial and concrete ruling on it?
I'm asking what page is the Versatile property counted as two-handed weapons, aside from page 215. Potentiality =/= actuality. Read the weapons table first, since it's the most mechanically reliable reference in the book regarding the specifics of weapons, then work upwards. I'm stuck from page 218 -> 219 -> 217 regarding the Versatile property (ignoring categories and groups of page 215), same with Heavy and Light Thrown Weapons (except pointing to their respective rulings), while Reach weapons have the additional clause in page 220 because the contents of page 215-219 assumes medium-sized characters. When reading Chapter 4, and comparing it to table in pages 218-219 it's easier to assume that because the table states that they have a range, and the Range entry states that only those that have an ampersand in their range property normally means they can't be used for range attacks, heavy and light thrown weapons in the table that have a range can be used for range attacks. Given that page 215-216 primarily describes weapon categories and groups, and not properties, it's difficult to make a case just from assumptions made from comparing seemingly similar cases.
D&D is about general rules with many exceptions, but the exceptions usually are rather explicit. Give me something I can actually work with so I can really say that when you use a versatile weapon two-handed it is counted as one.
I need direct and conclusive evidence, not circumstantial or corroborative evidence. Where can I say "because of what is written here, it can be directly and correctly interpreted that it is as such."
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'm looking for a page where I could quantify your argument as valid, outside of page 215. I'm not closing myself to the possibility of having Versatile weapons counted as two-handed weapons but as we are talking about the weapon property, how can I make a substantial and concrete ruling on it?
Sometimes you have to make assumptions and go with it. Kind of like with items being used as. No where does it say that they are treated or considered to be the item they are being used as, but it seems to be assumed that that is the case. And I'm glad you're opening yourself up to the possibility, rather than disregarding it completely.
I'm asking what page is the Versatile property counted as two-handed weapons, aside from page 215. Potentiality =/= actuality. Read the weapons table first, since it's the most mechanically reliable reference in the book regarding the specifics of weapons, then work upwards. I'm stuck from page 218 -> 219 -> 217 regarding the Versatile property (ignoring categories and groups of page 215), same with Heavy and Light Thrown Weapons (except pointing to their respective rulings), while Reach weapons have the additional clause in page 220 because the contents of page 215-219 assumes medium-sized characters. Given that page 215-216 primarily describes weapon categories and groups, and not properties, it's difficult to make a case just from assumptions made from comparing seemingly similar cases.
As I said earlier, assumptions sometimes just have to be made. It just so happens that these assumptions are actually not just seemingly similar cases. Rather pretty much identical references. When they speak of the heavy thrown property, it says they are counted as ranged weapons. So no problem there as it is speaks of the property specifically. Then it goes off to mention that some one-handed weapons can be held in the off-hand while holding another one-handed weapon in your other hand. It is clearly speaking of the off-hand property, but no where does it mention it. However, I can assume that is what they were talking about as it mirrors the off-hand property entry on page 217.
Next comes the description of some one-handed weapons being used as two-handed weapons, when used in two hands. No other property in the game matches this description since a stout weapon might be treated or used as a two-handed weapon, but you do not gain extra damage for using them in that way. As a result, we can assume and know that they were talking and describing the versatile property entry on page 217. While it may not exactly mirror the property, the property does infer that the weapon can be used in both classifications. Which could mean that depending on how its used, it could be used as either a one-handed weapon or a two-handed one which seems to follow the train of thought on page 215.
D&D is about general rules with many exceptions, but the exceptions usually are rather explicit. Give me something I can actually work with so I can really say that when you use a versatile weapon two-handed it is counted as one.
I need direct and conclusive evidence, not circumstantial or corroborative evidence.
You aren't going to find the exact wording ("counted/treated as") that you're looking for in regards to the versatile property. Despite the fact that this exception does not seem to be explicit in nature, it still can be assumed to be one since it has wording that supports it.
I'm looking for a page where I could quantify your argument as valid, outside of page 215. I'm not closing myself to the possibility of having Versatile weapons counted as two-handed weapons but as we are talking about the weapon property, how can I make a substantial and concrete ruling on it?
Sometimes you have to make assumptions and go with it. Kind of like with items being used as. No where does it say that they are treated or considered to be the item they are being used as, but it seems to be assumed that that is the case. And I'm glad you're opening yourself up to the possibility, rather than disregarding it completely.
I'm asking what page is the Versatile property counted as two-handed weapons, aside from page 215. Potentiality =/= actuality. Read the weapons table first, since it's the most mechanically reliable reference in the book regarding the specifics of weapons, then work upwards. I'm stuck from page 218 -> 219 -> 217 regarding the Versatile property (ignoring categories and groups of page 215), same with Heavy and Light Thrown Weapons (except pointing to their respective rulings), while Reach weapons have the additional clause in page 220 because the contents of page 215-219 assumes medium-sized characters. Given that page 215-216 primarily describes weapon categories and groups, and not properties, it's difficult to make a case just from assumptions made from comparing seemingly similar cases.
As I said earlier, assumptions sometimes just have to be made. It just so happens that these assumptions are actually not just seemingly similar cases. Rather pretty much identical references. When they speak of the heavy thrown property, it says they are counted as ranged weapons. So no problem there as it is speaks of the property specifically. Then it goes off to mention that some one-handed weapons can be held in the off-hand while holding another one-handed weapon in your other hand. It is clearly speaking of the off-hand property, but no where does it mention it. However, I can assume that is what they were talking about as it mirrors the off-hand property entry on page 217.
Next comes the description of some one-handed weapons being used as two-handed weapons, when used in two hands. No other property in the game matches this description since a stout weapon might be treated or used as a two-handed weapon, but you do not gain extra damage for using them in that way. As a result, we can assume and know that they were talking and describing the versatile property entry on page 217. While it may not exactly mirror the property, the property does infer that the weapon can be used in both classifications. Which could mean that depending on how its used, it could be used as either a one-handed weapon or a two-handed one which seems to follow the train of thought on page 215.
D&D is about general rules with many exceptions, but the exceptions usually are rather explicit. Give me something I can actually work with so I can really say that when you use a versatile weapon two-handed it is counted as one.
I need direct and conclusive evidence, not circumstantial or corroborative evidence.
You aren't going to find the exact wording ("counted/treated as") that you're looking for in regards to the versatile property. Despite the fact that this exception does not seem to be explicit in nature, it still can be assumed to be one since it has wording that supports it.
So basically this whole argument on versatile weapons being two-handed when used two-handed is summarily based on what makes more sense, correct? Instead of what is directly written on the pages, it's more like implied by the use of versatile weapons two-handed, combined with examples of other similar cases in other categories or what not, correct?
Well, that's probably going to not hold water for those who hold RAW in too high a regard, and RPGA might not support your views - in part because CS does hold weight in it - but it makes enough sense I suppose; if I were to DM and you attended, and you gave me that justification, I see no significant harm in letting it be counted as two-handed when used as such (so long as I'm not DMing any RPGA games, and it's not used as an excuse to power up Versatile weapons well beyond the capabilities of actual two-handed weapons). I see no need to continue this argument on my part, although I might still interject in the discussion from time to time.
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.
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."
First of all, I do disagree with the way weapons as implements are currently handled under the FAQ and CustServ responses, so that's not a very good counter point.
Second of all, your swordmage example isn't equivelent. Swordmages specifically know how to use any Heavy or Light Blade directly as an implement. They don't take a weapon and use it as an implement, it is an implement for them. Same for Sorcerers using Daggers.
Other weapons don't change classification when they are used as implements. They have properties that allow them to be used as the implement, but that doesn't make them one. Pact Dagger for example.
First of all, I do disagree with the way weapons as implements are currently handled under the FAQ and CustServ responses, so that's not a very good counter point.
Just because you disagree with them, doesn't mean they doesn't exist. However, I share the sentiment in certain cases. For example, I don't agree that a monk can benefit from a frost weapon's power according to the monk entry, but a sorcerer can't due to the faq's restrictions on weapons being used as implements.
Second of all, your swordmage example isn't equivelent. Swordmages specifically know how to use any Heavy or Light Blade directly as an implement. They don't take a weapon and use it as an implement, it is an implement for them. Same for Sorcerers using Daggers.
Actually, the example is solid. They are using their blade as an implement. NO where does it mention at all that a heavy blade is an implement or a dagger is an implement, rather a blade is being used as an implement, a dagger functions as an implement, or as shown on phb 2 p.204 using certain magic weapons as implements.
Even the few weapon examples in the phb2 for the bard and sorcerer, are listed as weapons IN BOLD rather than as implements like a totem,staff,orb,rod,etc. Therefore, these weapons are weapons, being used as implements. Case closed. If you still wish to prove your point, bring me some actual text saying that the blades/daggers are actual implements rather than used as one.
FRPG p24
Implements: Any light blade or heavy blade. Your blade adds its enhancement bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls and any extra damage granted by a property (if applicable) when used as an implement. You do not gain your weapon proficiency bonus to the attack roll when using your blade as an implement.
FRPG P. 26
Swordmages are smart, strong bastions of defense whose art is embodied by their swords. All swordmages have the class features described below. Your powers are also known as spells. You use your blade as your implement, employing it both as a melee weapon and as a conduit for your arcane magic.
PHB 2 136
Implements
Sorcerers wield daggers and staffs to channel their wild arcane power. When you wield a magic dagger or a magic staff, you can add its enhancement bonus to the attack rolls and the damage rolls of sorcerer powers and sorcerer paragon path powers that have the implement keyword. Without an implement, you can still use these powers. Any dagger can function as a sorcerer implement. However, you don’t gain a dagger’s proficiency bonus when using the dagger as an implement.
PHB2 p204
Using a Weapon as an Implement: Some classes can use certain magic weapons as implements. If you’re able to wield a magic weapon as an implement and use an implement power through it, you add the weapon’s enhancement bonus to the power’s attack rolls and damage rolls, but you do not use the weapon’s proficiency bonus. If you score a critical hit with the magic weapon when using it as an implement, you use the weapon’s critical hit effect.
Other weapons don't change classification when they are used as implements. They have properties that allow them to be used as the implement, but that doesn't make them one. Pact Dagger for example.
I didn't say they changed classification, since a dagger is still a dagger, but when its used as an implement it is considered to be an implement. Or are you implying/saying that if any weapon is used as an implement it isn't considered one at all, banning the use of any feat/feature/power that relies upon it?
Actually, the example is solid. They are using their blade as an implement. NO where does it mention at all that a heavy blade is an implement or a dagger is an implement, rather a blade is being used as an implement, a dagger functions as an implement, or as shown on phb 2 p.204 using certain magic weapons as implements.
I suggest you look at the swordmage class traits again (and sorcerer).
Implement: Any light blade or heavy blade
Implement: Daggers, staffs
They are defined as a type of implement for the classes (ie classified as implements). They aren't weapons being used as implements. They are implements for those classes. Use doesn't define the classification, it derives from their classification as implements for these classes. Just as weapon use derives from the classification as one or two handed, not the other way around.
And you are misunderstanding "use it as an implement" in your quotes. When you choose the implement "dagger", of course you use it as an implement. Because that's the usage that derives from the classification. You can't use it as a weapon when you are using it as an implement, because the implement classification doesn't allow that.
