Community

Jan 21, 2010 -- 4:56PM, weenog42 wrote:

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.

Yes, I understand.  And I believe that the rule is ambiguous.  The PHB says one thing and the character builder and CS say another.  Neither the CB nor CS is considered authoritative for very good reasons, but they are consistent on this matter.  The PHB, however, is authoritative, and the wording there is not clear.

It is conjecture to claim that "used two handed" and "used as a two handed weapon" mean different things.  Even if the interpretation that versatile weapons must always be one-handed weapons turns out to be definitive, that was poor wording.

Jan 21, 2010 -- 5:37PM, Saric wrote:

Jan 21, 2010 -- 4:58PM, Suoitidure wrote:

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."

How so? All its saying is that the manner of usage of the weapon must be a certain way. In this case, a halfling can't use a longsword as a one-handed weapon, since its way too heavy for his poor little arm. No where does it say, small characters can't use versatile weapons. All it says is they can't use weapons categorized as two-handed on page 215. Since versatile weapons can be used by a halfing two-handed, it shows a clear exception to the previous bullet as also evidenced in the versatile definition on page 217. Basically all it is listing is a specific restriction on how the weapon must be used. Otherwise, halflings could use bastard swords one-handed just like medium creatures (which is possible if it had the small property). In a nutshell, versatile is the poor man's version of "two-handed" weapons for small creatures.

If a versatile weapon being held in two hands counts as a two-handed weapon, then small characters cannot wield them, since they cannot wield two-handed weapons.

I like how you are calling out the category of two-handed weapons on PH 215, yet ignoring the category of one-handed weapons (which all versatile weapons fall under).

Jan 21, 2010 -- 6:07PM, Einlanzer wrote:

Suo, Weenog, I'm trying very hard to discontinue being crass about it, but neither of your arguments really make any sense to me.  I feel reasonably confident that the original designers intended for versatile to mean that a weapon can function as either 1 handed or 2 handed.  They probably wrongly presumed that readers would clue in on this meaning without having to have extremely specific wording backing it up.  I'm quite certain they didn't intend to make the Great Weapon Fighter build completely unavailable to small characters, and more than 1 instance of text in the PHB backs up my interpretation, while none back yours up, except of course the ignorant CS ruling (I see the Barbarian errata as a condescending re-specification and do not think it backs up your claim). 

This is the Rules Q&A forum. Intention means very little here.
"If you want a no-nonsense discussion about what a rule means or where it can be found, ask your question here."

Yes, of course, every build of every class should be a viable option for every race. *nod nod* Wait, what? Where does it say that?

And, I'm sorry, where does it say that a versatile weapon held in two-hands counts as a two-handed weapon? A citation that says exactly that would shut me up. As it stands, the only quote you have provided would let me use my javelin in two hands and treat it as a two-handed weapon.

Jan 21, 2010 -- 6:07PM, Einlanzer wrote:

I just don't know how else to say it, it's apparent that the argument will continue no matter what either side says as we just refuse to see it from each other's perspective.   

Edit:  Let's not forget this, from Dragon #379

"Size: Gnomes and halflings have a tough time as
great weapon fighters since they cannot wield twohanded
weapons. Small great weapon fighters must
use versatile weapons instead, but they do not benefit
from the versatile property. Faced with these disadvantages,
you might consider a different build for a
Small fighter."

The author seems be matter-of-fact about gnomes and halflings being able to use versatile weapons as 2 handed weapons in the context of great weapon powers. Hmm...

And that same author later writes a feat that says "When wielding a one-handed versatile weapon in two hands..." Seems to be to me that there is inconsistency in this Dragon article... Also, Dragon articles are notorious for poor editing.

Jan 21, 2010 -- 6:07PM, Einlanzer wrote:

Lastly, let's just use logic.  A fairly large weapon wielded in both hands is a 2 handed weapon.  This ruling seem unanimous on sites other than WotC.  www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t...

So, I do get to have my javelin as a two-handed weapon. Citing an other forum (that has no further "proof" than yourself) holds no water.

Can you find any rules reference that refers to wielding a versatile weapon in two hands as wielding a two-handed weapon? All I can find are things like Two-Handed Grasp (from Primal Power) that says "While you wield a spear with the versatile property in two hands..."

Jan 21, 2010 -- 7:55PM, Einlanzer wrote:

The inconsistency you speak of is really just casual wording, which is sufficient for the majority of people. 

Casual wording does not lead to game rules.

Jan 21, 2010 -- 7:55PM, Einlanzer wrote:

Again, the javelin thing?  Versatile is a qualifier, a specification that basically states 'this is generally considered a one-handed weapon, but its size and form make it functional as a 2 handed weapon'.  A javelin can't really be wielded properly in two hands, hence its non-versatile status.  What does that have to do with anything? 

Who to the what? I thought the qualifier is that it has to be large enough that you can keep a good grip on it with two hands... That's what it says on PH 215. Are you trying to tell me that a javelin is not large enough for this?  It is much larger than a mace (which is a versatile weapon).

Jan 21, 2010 -- 7:55PM, Einlanzer wrote:

I'm sorry, but the only thing I can say to all of that is that in my opinion, it just doesn't have to be that explicitly stated to be obvious, and I'm absolutely certain more people than not share the same view.  

  So, a majority = being correct? I'm not sure how that is supposed to work.  The majority of people believed in geocentrisim in the middle ages... did that make it true?

And, yes, in a rules system, it does have to be explicitly stated to be a rule.