|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 9:14PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2005
|
I’ve removed content from this thread because off topic disruption is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg... Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Method Actor
100%
Storyteller
100%
Butt Kicker 50%
Tactician 50%
Power Gamer 25%
Specialist 25%
Casual Gamer 25%
The Code of Conduct is: http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1916
To contact Customer Service: http://wizards.custhelp.com
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 9:15PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Dec 17, 2008
|
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.
Ok, but count me out of that 'more people than not' crowd, as well as the 6 players at my table who are unanimous on this issue after I showed them this thread.
Well, good for you and your players. You should probably use a less biased thread to make your decision.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 9:24PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2002
|
I’ve removed content from this thread because off topic disruption is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
At this rate, the thread will be closed soon.  Anyways, I just think there is a level of frustration in a debate/argument when the other side won't even try to see your point. I have a feeling that this question will be resolved in an update soon. I hope.
Anyways, not like it matters much to anyone since CS isn't regarded as a rules advocate, but here it is anyways.  Gotta love CS with its contradicting answers.
Saric,
Hello. Yes, a versatile weapon is considered a two-handed weapon for the purposes of feats and powers, if you are wielding it with two hands.
Please write us back if you require any further assistance.
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account, or update your question please click here.
Evan T.
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
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 9:27PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Dec 17, 2008
|
At this rate, the thread will be closed soon. Anyways, I just think there is a level of frustration in a debate/argument when the other side won't even try to see your point. I have a feeling that this question will be resolved in an update soon. I hope.
Anyways, not like it matters much to anyone since CS isn't regarded as a rules advocate, but here it is anyways. Gotta love CS with its contradicting answers.
Saric,
Hello. Yes, a versatile weapon is considered a two-handed weapon for the purposes of feats and powers, if you are wielding it with two hands.
Please write us back if you require any further assistance.
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account, or update your question please click here.
Evan T.
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
Hey, that's something. At the very least it's a morale booster and proves that the other CS response isn't a legitimate source.
I honestly try to keep posts tactful, and try to keep an open mind, but for some reason this particular subject gets me up in arms because I absolutely cannot fathom the other side's logic. It might well have something to with left brain/right brain complexes or something.
I feel confident that this rule will be errata'd in favor of the RAI...just have to make it until then.
edit: thanks for taking it upon yourself to ask Saric.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 9:57PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2002
|
Hey, that's something. At the very lest it's a morale booster and proves that the other CS response isn't a legitimate source.
I honestly try to keep posts tactful, and try to keep an open mind, but for some reason this particular subject gets me up in arms because I absolutely cannot fathom the other side's logic.
I feel confident that this rule will be errata'd in favor of the RAI...just have to make it until then.
edit: thanks for taking it upon yourself to ask Saric.
No problem. Well for people on these forums, CS isn't usually regarded as the end-all for rules questions/answers. This is due to their conflicting answers, so their answers are usually disregarded by this forum like 99.99% of the time. And that .01% of the time, people are either too lazy or sleepy to continue debating so they just agree with cs's stance.
To be honest, this same question/subject about versatile always pops up like 1-3 times a month, and it typically is always hotly debated. And most of the time, page 215 is typically not taken into account. Regardless, its nice to see someone else actually agrees with that interpretation. Anyways, I think im going to bug the update team with e-mails until they resolve the issue once and for all. Here's to hoping!
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 11:15PM
#56
|
|
|
This right here is the crux of the issue. My logic tells me the exact opposite.
Yet D&D rules are a technical documentation that uses it's own defined technical terms and their definition sometimes differs from what would be the colloquial use of the same term.
E.g. a fighter using Sweeping Blow with his greatsword against three adjacent enemies is clearly making three melee attacks by colloquial definition. However as far as the D&D rules are concerned he's not making a single melee attack but just one close attack.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 11:23PM
#57
|
|
|
There is no evidence that the original writers intended
Actually there is. Mike Mearls has flat out stated that he intended versatile weapons to be the best of both worlds (aka counting as 1h or 2h whichever would be best in a given situation). That's Mearl's RAI and there's no doubt about it.
However it means squat since he failed to put his RAI into RAW. I feel confident that this rule will be errata'd in favor of the RAI...just have to make it until then.
I always thought the same and then the barbarian power errata came and actually cemented the RAI contradicting RAW.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2010 - 6:53AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2008
|
There is no evidence that the original writers intended
Actually there is. Mike Mearls has flat out stated that he intended versatile weapons to be the best of both worlds (aka counting as 1h or 2h whichever would be best in a given situation). That's Mearl's RAI and there's no doubt about it.
That would be evidence against the thing that I was saying there is no evidence for, and also mentioned in the very next sentence after the one you quoted.
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.
That's what happens when you only read the first few words of a paragraph.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2010 - 8:05AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2002
|
There is no evidence that the original writers intended
Actually there is. Mike Mearls has flat out stated that he intended versatile weapons to be the best of both worlds (aka counting as 1h or 2h whichever would be best in a given situation). That's Mearl's RAI and there's no doubt about it.
However it means squat since he failed to put his RAI into RAW.
I feel confident that this rule will be errata'd in favor of the RAI...just have to make it until then.
I always thought the same and then the barbarian power errata came and actually cemented the RAI contradicting RAW.
Mearls's rai is actually supported by the phb raw. The only way one can believe otherwise is by doing a few things.
Step #1 Ignore page 215 and the section talking about certain one-handed weapons being used as two-handed weapons. And the section about dealing extra damage as a result. "They obviously aren't talking about versatile, and since it doesn't say it is versatile, therefore it does not apply to versatile".
Step #2:Despite the versatile property does say that the weapons can be used two-handed, they aren't considered two-handed, even though they can be used in such a manner. Also, this two-handed usage is not referring to the weapon classification on page 215 at all, rather just "holding/wielding" in two hands.
Step #3: Trust the char builder despite its assortment of bugs.
Step #4: Trust an update team's interpretation even though they didn't delete/remove conflicting text in the phb.
And for the record, All the barbarian at-will power updates really did was allow suo's example of holding any weapon (such as a javelin) used in two hands to be used with those powers. Thus, a halfling or a human could technically hold a javelin in two hands and use recuperating strike. It just seems to me that even the update team doesn't do its research sometimes, and as a result, doesn't always write an updated rule in the way they say they want it to be or with everything in mind. (see the update to storm pillar and you'll see what I mean.)
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 22, 2010 - 8:26AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
And most of the time, page 215 is typically not taken into account.
Trust me, someone always takes it into account. It's the crux of the "versatile are two-handed when used two-handed" argument.
As a person who has argued vehemently on the side of "versatile weapons are always one handed weapons" I've been forced over time to accept that it's actually NOT that clear, RAW or (because of Mike Mearls and the Barbarian Errata apparently being in conflict) RAI. Page 215 is most easily interpreted as versatile switching categories (although not categorically so) and the versatile property is most easily intepreted as versatile weapons staying one-handed regardless of use (although again not categorically so). I still feel it's the latter, just because I prefer to treat what I consider the "hard rule" as overriding in a conflict, and because the Barbarian at-will errata seems to back it up, given that this exact argument was the reason they changed it (according to the comment). But I won't feel shocked or betrayed or amazed if there is an errata to the versatile property making it clear it changes categories any more.
|
|
|
