|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 10:48AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Dec 17, 2008
|
I can't believe the stupidity behind the ruling of versatile weapons only counting as 1 handed weapons.
It very clearly goes against both common sense and the designer's intent, and doesn't just penalize but shuts small characters out of certain builds completely.
from the PH, pg 215:
"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".
It really undermines the credibility of the Customer Service department in my PoV, and I likely won't pay any attention to their answers in the future.
I also have a similar issue with the ruling on Commander's Strike, where the melee weapon tag is clearly meant for the ally and not the warlord.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 10:55AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2010
|
It very clearly goes against both common sense and the designer's intent, and doesn't just penalize but shuts small characters out of certain builds completely.
I also have a similar issue with the ruling on Commander's Strike, where the melee weapon tag is clearly meant for the ally and not the warlord.
For 2 handed weapons on small characters I would argue that you're free to house-rule it as such. Probably won't break the game. The game's rules serve as an outline to do with as you wish.
For the Commander's Strike, I think that the flavor text plays into people's interpretation here a lot. I envision the Warlord as using his own weapon to open up an opportunity for his ally to strike, thereby granting him the additional damage. Just shouting, "Hit him!" doesn't seem quite as reasonable, like the barbarian needs additional instructions when it comes to hitting things, vis a vis, doing it.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 11:03AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2008
|
I am with you 100% on versatile weapons, and disagree 100% on commander's strike, which means I must rate this post at 0%.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 11:06AM
#4
|
|
|
I am with you 100% on versatile weapons, and disagree 100% on commander's strike, which means I must rate this post at 0%.
Resistances and vulnerabilities don't cancel: the post is both +100% and -100%. 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 11:30AM
#5
|
|
|
.
It really undermines the credibility of the Customer Service department in my PoV, and I likely won't pay any attention to their answers in the future.
At least they're being consistent. Not saying you should trust CS, but this isn't their fault. 4E works this way.
.
I also have a similar issue with the ruling on Commander's Strike, where the melee weapon tag is clearly meant for the ally and not the warlord.
If that was the case, the power would be ranged, or a close burst. It is not.
The creature must be within melee range for the Warlord to designate it as the target.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 11:32AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2002
|
I can't believe the stupidity behind the ruling of versatile weapons only counting as 1 handed weapons.
It very clearly goes against both common sense and the designer's intent, and doesn't just penalize but shuts small characters out of certain builds completely.
from the PH, pg 215:
"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".
It really undermines the credibility of the Customer Service department in my PoV, and I likely won't pay any attention to their answers in the future.
I also have a similar issue with the ruling on Commander's Strike, where the melee weapon tag is clearly meant for the ally and not the warlord.
CS is notorious for not looking at the big picture. Which is why sometimes you'll get an answer that is right, and other times you'll get a wrong answer.
But I do have a quick question. If you already knew the answer, why were you asking CS for one? You already have raw supporting versatile weapons being used as two-handed weapons. Anyone who chooses to ignore said fact is deliberately ignoring that section or isn't aware of it. A more appropriate answer should have given to you by CS instead. For example:"Due to conflicting text in the phb, this is something your DM will have to decide upon. In the meantime, I have submitted this situation to the update team for further review. Thank you an have a nice day."
So in a nutshell, until that section you quoted from the phb is deleted/altered/updated, or a faq entry specifically states "Versatile weapons NEVER count as two-handed weapons", this question will probably never reach a consensus.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 12:05PM
#7
|
|
|
I can't believe the stupidity behind the ruling of versatile weapons only counting as 1 handed weapons.
You mean that they dare to rule according to RAW?
It very clearly goes against both common sense
Common sense is not something that applies to technical classifications (e.g. a close burst 1 attack with a melee weapon (e.g. Sweeping Blow) also isn't a melee attack but a close attack) like game terms.
and the designer's intent,
Well, the designers should write down what they mean if they write something different than they intended, it's their error
and doesn't just penalize but shuts small characters out of certain builds completely.
For this there was the recent errata that changed from "2h weapons" to "2h weapons or weapons wielded with two hands" (which incidentally implies that they have completely given up on the designers original intend and decided to live with how RAW was written down instead of fixing RAW to match the intend)
It really undermines the credibility of the Customer Service department
Actually such rulings restore some small credibility compared to the many other cases Cust Serv ruled against RAW and even against other Cust Serv answers.
I also have a similar issue with the ruling on Commander's Strike, where the melee weapon tag is clearly meant for the ally and not the warlord.
That's not how powers work in 4e. There is a strict template for how to write powers and the keywords for the ally are under melee basic attack and not under the triggering warlord power
You already have raw supporting versatile weapons being used as two-handed weapons. Anyone who chooses to ignore said fact is deliberately ignoring that section or isn't aware of it
If there ever was doubt on what RAW is for this issue, the errata to the barbarian powers should have ended it once and for all.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 12:13PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Dec 17, 2008
|
In my defense, I'm not nearly as stubborn about Commander's Strike, there's definitely ambiguity there, I just prefer to rule it as ranged (especially since we're getting a ranged build for warlords).
Saric, I didn't actually ask CS about versatile weapons. i just accidentally read it on the consolidated answer thread, and subsequently got enraged by it, hence why I posted.
Mirtek, I don't believe that CS' intepretation is RAW, see my quote in the original post. Nevermind the fact that it's so sensible and obvious that it really doesn't need to be stated more clearly. As someone else stated in a different thread, the barbarian errata is a case of having to cater to the lowest common denominator.
I don't mean to troll, but if you think that a bastard sword wielded in both hands by a small creature is not a 2 handed weapon, there's something very wrong with your skills of perception.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 12:18PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2009
|
Mirtek, I don't believe that CS' intepretation is RAW, see my quote in the original post. Nevermind the fact that it's so clear cut and obvious that it really doesn't need to be stated more clearly. As
That mentions nothing about the Versatile property... you are just inferring a connection.
The most obvious place to look for the rules on Versatile would be... the rules on Versatile:
Versatile: Versatile weapons are one-handed, but
you can use them two-handed. If you do, you deal an
extra 1 point of damage when you roll damage for the
weapon.
A Small character such as a halfling must use a
versatile weapon two-handed and doesn’t deal extra
damage.
Nothing about them being treated as two-handed weapons--and they can be found under the "one-handed" categories of each of the melee weapon charts.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 21, 2010 - 12:23PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Dec 17, 2008
|
Mirtek, I don't believe that CS' intepretation is RAW, see my quote in the original post. Nevermind the fact that it's so clear cut and obvious that it really doesn't need to be stated more clearly. As
That mentions nothing about the Versatile property... you are just inferring a connection.
The most obvious place to look for the rules on Versatile would be... the rules on Versatile:
Versatile: Versatile weapons are one-handed, but
you can use them two-handed. If you do, you deal an
extra 1 point of damage when you roll damage for the
weapon.
A Small character such as a halfling must use a
versatile weapon two-handed and doesn’t deal extra
damage.
Nothing about them being treated as two-handed weapons--and they can be found under the "one-handed" categories of each of the melee weapon charts.
It is very, very clearly talking about 1 handed weapons with the versatile property.
Moderated by
ORC_Sinister
on Jan 21, 2010 - 08:29PM
|
|
|
