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?
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.
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?
