|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 4:13PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Dec 17, 2008
|
They have to explicitely state that they are no longer treated as one-handed weapons to be anything but that. This is not the case.
This right here is the crux of the issue. My logic tells me the exact opposite. Maybe it's a left vs. right brained thing or something.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 4:19PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2002
|
It is simple. Because the rules never say they are treated as two-handed weapons. As you yourself pointed out, there is a rule for larger creatures using smaller 2-handed weapons and treating them as 1-handed.
They have to explicitely state that they are no longer treated as one-handed weapons to be anything but that. This is not the case.
So my javelin being held in two-hands counts as a two-handed weapon, yes?
Do I need to repeat the example of the convert's symbol? It never ceases to be a holy symbol but can be used as an arcane implement, and will be treated as such when used in that manner. The same thing applies to versatile.
And a javelin obviously doesn't count as a two-handed weapon since it doesn't have the versatile property. Sure you can swing it in two hands, but it isn't being "used two-handed" or "as a two-handed weapon". If it had the versatile property, it would be considered to be "large enough that you can keep a good grip with two hands and deal extra damage by using them (it) as a two-handed weapon". And for the record, the versatile property clearly states that versatile weapons are "one-handed but can be used two-handed". Since two-handed is a weapon category, rather than just being as simple as wielding something in two hands, the interpretation that versatile weapons can't be used as two-handed weapons loses a lot of credibility and doesn't hold much water.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 4:26PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2009
|
Do I need to repeat the example of the convert's symbol? It never ceases to be a holy symbol but can be used as an arcane implement, and will be treated as such when used in that manner. The same thing applies to versatile.
I'm sorry. I must have missed the rule saying that versatile weapons could be treated as two-handed weapons... Convert's Symbol says it can be treated as such, so it can. Versatile never says it can be treated as such, so it cannot.
And a javelin obviously doesn't count as a two-handed weapon since it doesn't have the versatile property. Sure you can swing it in two hands, but it isn't being used two-handed or as a two-handed weapon. If it had the versatile property, it would be considered to be "large enough that you can keep a good grip with two hands and deal extra damage by using them (it) as a two-handed weapon".
Who said anything about versatile property with the javelin? The line that continues to be quoted ("Other one-handed weapons are large enough that you can keep a good grip on them with two hands and deal extra damage by using them as two-handed weapons.") Says nothing about versatile. Are you trying to say that a javelin is not large enough to keep a good grip on it? I mean, this is the "rule" is it not?
And for the record, the versatile property clearly states that versatile weapons are "one-handed but can be used two-handed". Since two-handed is a weapon category, rather than just being as simple as wielding something in two hands, the interpretation that versatile weapons can't be used as two-handed weapons loses a lot of credibility and doesn't hold much water.
Yes, it can be used "two-handed," as in, you can use it with two hands. This is the most common definition of "two-handed" out there. It does not say "you can use them as two-handed weapons." Compare this to the quote you provided earlier about large creatures using smaller two-handed weapons. "...and treat them as one-handed weapons." Notice what is in that sentence that is not in the versatile property?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 4:27PM
#34
|
|
|
the versatile property clearly states that versatile weapons are "one-handed but can be used two-handed"
This is not the same as saying that they become members of the Two-Handed weapon category.
Since two-handed is a weapon category, rather than just being as simple as wielding something in two hands, the interpretation that versatile weapons can't be used as two-handed weapons loses a lot of credibility and doesn't hold much water.
This argues the opposite. As you say, One-handed and Two-handed are weapon categories, not matters of how the weapon is wielded. Thus, a One-Handed weapon with the Versatile property remains a One-Handed weapon regardless of how it is wielded.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 4:43PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2008
|
At this point both RAW and RAI are ambiguous. As with any situation where the rules are ambiguous, groups should decide what works best for themselves, with DM as final arbiter.
Any argument that hinges on the specific wording of versatile is ludicrous. There is no evidence that the original writers intended "this weapon can be used two handed" and "this weapon can be used as a two-handed weapon" to mean different things, and there is significant evidence that they did intend the two phrases to be interchangeable in the form of: 1. the fact that the property is described elsewhere in the book using the magic word "as" and 2. an explicit statement by Mike Mearls. If a weapon can be used two handed, then by definition it is a two handed weapon. (As a side effect, this also means that you can use thrown melee weapons such as daggers and throwing axes to meet the requirements of ranger powers that require a ranged weapon.)
However, since the PHB WotC has consistently interpreted the rule (contrary to the designer's stated intention) to mean that versatile weapons are one-handed only. This is evident in the character builder, the FAQ, and the errata.
My personal conjecture is that some of the developers have been assuming that versatile weapons are one handed only and some of them have been assuming that they can be used as both two handed or one handed weapons. There is currently internal disagreement, and eventually we will receive an unequivocal statement one way or the other.
In the meantime, somewhere out there amongst the thousands of people who purchased the PHB2, there is some poor little boy named li'l Johnny, and he is very poor indeed, and mostly illiterate, and he probably won't live to see next Christmas, who spent an entire month's pay from his job working as a dirt miner on the PHB2 because he saw that there were gnomes and barbarians and he thought, "Awesome, I will make a gnome barbarian, and it will probably be my only joy in this, my last year of life." And then Li'l Johnny's rules-lawyering DM told Johnny that he could never use his second at-will as a gnome barbarian. That's why they issued the errata to the barbarian powers, to help out li'l Johnny before he dies of blacklung, or whatever it is that kills dirtminers.
Meanwhile, most of the devs have probably thrown up their hands in disgust at the whole debate, but there are two left who are typing furious e-mails to each right now saying things like:
"Look, how big of an idiot do you have to be to misunderstand the difference between 'used as a two-handed weapon' and 'used two-handed?'"
"How big of an idiot do you have to be to misunderstand that a weapon that can be used two-handed is by definition a weapon that can be used as a two-handed weapon?"
"Pfft, like I'm going to trust the interpretation of the guy who came up with tribal feats! How moronic are those?"
"Yeah, well, at least I'm not the moron who said, 'Hey, let's just throw in weapon expertise to fix the epic level math.'"
Etc.
If I had the opportunity to plead my case to WotC, I would argue that versatile weapons should be able to fulfill two-handed weapon requirements, because that interpretation is simply more interesting than the interpretation that merely grants +1 damage. It means that a character who wields a versatile weapon can, as a free action, swap back and forth between two-handed feats and powers and one-handed feats and powers. As a minor action he can equip a shield and meet those requirements as well. Compared to juggling three different fighting styles, doing +1 damage is just lame.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 4:50PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2009
|
In the meantime, somewhere out there amongst the thousands of people who purchased the PHB2, there is some poor little boy named li'l Johnny, and he is very poor indeed, and mostly illiterate, and he probably won't live to see next Christmas, who spent an entire month's pay from his job working as a dirt miner on the PHB2 because he saw that there were gnomes and barbarians and he thought, "Awesome, I will make a gnome barbarian, and it will probably be my only joy in this, my last year of life." And then Li'l Johnny's rules-lawyering DM told Johnny that he could never use his second at-will as a gnome barbarian. That's why they issued the errata to the barbarian powers, to help out li'l Johnny before he dies of blacklung, or whatever it is that kills dirtminers.
I lol'd
As a minor action he can equip a shield and meet those requirements as well. Compared to juggling three different fighting styles, doing +1 damage is just lame.
It is a standard action to retrieve and equip a shield (and vice-versa).
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 4:50PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2002
|
Do I need to repeat the example of the convert's symbol? It never ceases to be a holy symbol but can be used as an arcane implement, and will be treated as such when used in that manner. The same thing applies to versatile.
I'm sorry. I must have missed the rule saying that versatile weapons could be treated as two-handed weapons... Convert's Symbol says it can be treated as such, so it can. Versatile never says it can be treated as such, so it cannot.
And a javelin obviously doesn't count as a two-handed weapon since it doesn't have the versatile property. Sure you can swing it in two hands, but it isn't being used two-handed or as a two-handed weapon. If it had the versatile property, it would be considered to be "large enough that you can keep a good grip with two hands and deal extra damage by using them (it) as a two-handed weapon".
Who said anything about versatile property with the javelin? The line that continues to be quoted ("Other one-handed weapons are large enough that you can keep a good grip on them with two hands and deal extra damage by using them as two-handed weapons.") Says nothing about versatile. Are you trying to say that a javelin is not large enough to keep a good grip on it? I mean, this is the "rule" is it not?
And for the record, the versatile property clearly states that versatile weapons are "one-handed but can be used two-handed". Since two-handed is a weapon category, rather than just being as simple as wielding something in two hands, the interpretation that versatile weapons can't be used as two-handed weapons loses a lot of credibility and doesn't hold much water.
Yes, it can be used "two-handed," as in, you can use it with two hands. This is the most common definition of "two-handed" out there. It does not say "you can use them as two-handed weapons." Compare this to the quote you provided earlier about large creatures using smaller two-handed weapons. "...and treat them as one-handed weapons." Notice what is in that sentence that is not in the versatile property?
You know, you're funny  . The common definition argument can't work in this case. This is because "two-handed" and "one-handed" are game terms in dnd with their own unique definitions. You know, kinda like how certain keywords are defined in game (Implement,Fire,Ranged,Initiative,etc), or what insubstancial means or even what "wielding" means in-game.
As a result, the game's own definitions separate what is "common" from a normal dictionary. And typically when this occurs in the phb or any of the rulebooks, these are bolded and explained in a few sentences or paragraphs afterwards. Otherwise, we wouldn't know that only one holy symbol can be worn/held or none of them function since it tells that information in the third paragraph of page 236 of the phb. (This is in response to you saying "The paragraph cited is seperate from the paragraph talking about one/two-handed classification.") I guess that paragraph is separate too, I guess I can wear 30 holy symbols and gain all the properties powers.
And for the record, I didn't quote anything about large creatures using one-handed or two-handed weapons. I just spoke of "reach". I believe it was Einlanzer.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 4:53PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2008
|
It is a standard action to retrieve and equip a shield (and vice-versa).
That actually makes a lot of sense. I've never seen it in-game but for some reason I assumed it was a minor just like weapons and it always seemed too easy for something as heavy and clumsy as a shield.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 4:56PM
#39
|
|
|
Any argument that hinges on the specific wording of versatile is ludicrous. There is no evidence that the original writers intended...
The specific wording is what they gave us, so that's what we discuss. Anything else is conjecture.
The question being debated is, "what is the rule?" There is a definitive answer to that, irrespective of author's intent. (Not always the case, as there can be direct contradiction. But we do not encounter that in this instance).
It's not at all unreasonable to say "The rule is X, but the authors probably intended this to do Y, so that's how I'm playing it." But we need to reach agreement on the "The rule is X" part.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 4:58PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2009
|
You know, you're funny . The common definition argument can't work in this case. This is because "two-handed" and "one-handed" are game terms in dnd with their own unique definitions. You know, kinda like how certain keywords are defined in game (Implement,Fire,Ranged,Initiative,etc), or what insubstancial means or even what "wielding" means in-game.
As a result, the game's own definitions separate what is "common" from a normal dictionary. And typically when this occurs in the phb or any of the rulebooks, these are bolded and explained in a few sentences or paragraphs afterwards. Otherwise, we wouldn't know that only one holy symbol can be worn/held or none of them function since it tells that information in the third paragraph of page 236 of the phb. (This is in response to you saying "The paragraph cited is seperate from the paragraph talking about one/two-handed classification.") I guess that paragraph is separate too, I guess I can wear 30 holy symbols and gain all the properties powers.
Well, in that case, a small character can never wield a versatile weapon then--if using it two-handed means it is a two-handed weapon.
BEING SMALL
Small characters follow most of the same rules as Medium
ones, with the following exceptions.
✦ You can’t use two-handed weapons (page 215), such as
greatswords and halberds.
✦ When you use a versatile weapon (page 217), such as a
longsword, you must use it two-handed, but you don’t
deal additional damage for doing so.
Here we have pretty clear text differentiating between "two-handed weapons" and "used two-handed."
And for the record, I didn't quote anything about large creatures using one-handed or two-handed weapons. I just spoke of "reach". I believe it was Einlanzer.
My bad, you are correct.
|
|
|
