|
3 years ago ::
Feb 02, 2010 - 3:11PM
#201
|
- Dragon Slayer
- If only he would apply himself
- Dammit Jim, this is Star Trek, not D&D!
Date Joined:
Jan 31, 2006
|
MP2 has some clarification:
"Versatile Weapons: If you use a versatile weapon, switching your grip from one hand to two hands is a free action. However, if a power requires you to have a hand free, you must keep that hand free for the entire attack or until you use the hand for something that is part of the attack, such as grabbing an enemy." (There is a new MP2 fighter build with powers requiring a free hand).
Follow my blog and Twitter feed with Dark Sun campaign design and DM tips! Dark Sun's Ashes of Athas Campaign is now available for home play (PM me with your e-mail to order the campaign adventures).
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 02, 2010 - 6:18PM
#202
|
|
|
if you use a spork, a machete or a fork as a knife, for all intents and purposes it would be considered spork, a machete or a fork that you use as a knife.
if you treat a spork, a machete or a fork as a knife, for all intents and purposes it would be considered a knife.
if a spork, a machete or a fork you use count as a knife, for all intents and purposes it would be considered a knife.
Otherwise it's a spork, a machete or a fork.
I have to try this at the store
*hands cashier a 1 dollar bill*
Sir its not enough
But I am using as a 20 dollar bill. I am treating as a 20 dollar bill
But sir it isn't a 20 dollar bill.
Yes But I am treating is as 20 dollar bill so it is one
But the rules don't allow it. That's the key difference.
Frankly, I do not see what all the argument is about anyway. For Versatile weapons, for example, all two-handed weapon feats, powers., etc. all work when using one with two hands, so who cares if it is actually a two-handed weapon when thus wielded or not? It's treated just as if it is one, and is not that, for all practical purposes,. the same thing?
Really, what practical difference does it make?
acutally that is what this is about. A verstile weapon doesn't count as two-handed weapon when wielded two-hands so all the feats and powers that require a two-handed weapon wouldn't work with a verstile weapon.
we are just alking about the rules as written, and as they are currently written doesn't allow that.
INstead of starting this whole thread over just reread this thread 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 03, 2010 - 8:42AM
#203
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2002
|
if you use a spork, a machete or a fork as a knife, for all intents and purposes it would be considered spork, a machete or a fork that you use as a knife.
if you treat a spork, a machete or a fork as a knife, for all intents and purposes it would be considered a knife.
if a spork, a machete or a fork you use count as a knife, for all intents and purposes it would be considered a knife.
Otherwise it's a spork, a machete or a fork.
I have to try this at the store
*hands cashier a 1 dollar bill*
Sir its not enough
But I am using as a 20 dollar bill. I am treating as a 20 dollar bill
But sir it isn't a 20 dollar bill.
Yes But I am treating is as 20 dollar bill so it is one
A better example would be lockpicks. A rogue accidently breaks all his lock-picks one dah. Since he can't open the door in front of him, he uses a paper clip that he finds lying around. A paperclip is just a paperclip, but the rogue can use it as a lockpick, allowing him to unlock the door. While the paperclip never magically turned into a lockpick, the way the rogue used it allowed it to function as a lockpick.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 03, 2010 - 9:06AM
#204
|
|
|
if you use a spork, a machete or a fork as a knife, for all intents and purposes it would be considered spork, a machete or a fork that you use as a knife.
if you treat a spork, a machete or a fork as a knife, for all intents and purposes it would be considered a knife.
if a spork, a machete or a fork you use count as a knife, for all intents and purposes it would be considered a knife.
Otherwise it's a spork, a machete or a fork.
I have to try this at the store
*hands cashier a 1 dollar bill*
Sir its not enough
But I am using as a 20 dollar bill. I am treating as a 20 dollar bill
But sir it isn't a 20 dollar bill.
Yes But I am treating is as 20 dollar bill so it is one
A better example would be lockpicks. A rogue accidently breaks all his lock-picks one dah. Since he can't open the door in front of him, he uses a paper clip that he finds lying around. A paperclip is just a paperclip, but the rogue can use it as a lockpick, allowing him to unlock the door. While the paperclip never magically turned into a lockpick, the way the rogue used it allowed it to function as a lockpick.
But I am trying to use it as a 20 dollar bill so in my hands its a 20 dollar bill.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 03, 2010 - 11:30AM
#205
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2002
|
But I am trying to use it as a 20 dollar bill so in my hands its a 20 dollar bill.
If you had a class ability or magic item that allowed you to do so, then it would be considered a 20 dollar bill. Sucks that you don't have that ability/item though .
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 03, 2010 - 12:05PM
#206
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2007
|
But the rules don't allow it. That's the key difference.
Frankly, I do not see what all the argument is about anyway. For Versatile weapons, for example, all two-handed weapon feats, powers., etc. all work when using one with two hands, so who cares if it is actually a two-handed weapon when thus wielded or not? It's treated just as if it is one, and is not that, for all practical purposes,. the same thing?
Really, what practical difference does it make?
Well there are a number of reasons why this particular discussion is an ongoing debate.
People don't want someone to have an advantage. 'it's not fair that someone can use either benefit from powerattack by using a versatile weapon in either one hand or two hands.'
People want to show they 'know the true rule'
People hate the small race concept and in order to really stick the 'I hate small races concept" they can never, ever, ever, have a two handed weapon, thus showing WotC just how stupid the small race idea is.
People don't want choice. Two handed is from this __ list and this list only, now just how smart are you in picking the 'correct' weapon from this ___ list.
etc.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 03, 2010 - 6:10PM
#207
|
|
|
But the rules don't allow it. That's the key difference.
Frankly, I do not see what all the argument is about anyway. For Versatile weapons, for example, all two-handed weapon feats, powers., etc. all work when using one with two hands, so who cares if it is actually a two-handed weapon when thus wielded or not? It's treated just as if it is one, and is not that, for all practical purposes,. the same thing?
Really, what practical difference does it make?
Well there are a number of reasons why this particular discussion is an ongoing debate.
People don't want someone to have an advantage. 'it's not fair that someone can use either benefit from powerattack by using a versatile weapon in either one hand or two hands.'
People want to show they 'know the true rule'
People hate the small race concept and in order to really stick the 'I hate small races concept" they can never, ever, ever, have a two handed weapon, thus showing WotC just how stupid the small race idea is.
People don't want choice. Two handed is from this __ list and this list only, now just how smart are you in picking the 'correct' weapon from this ___ list.
etc.
I think people just want clarifaction on what the rule is. Before I even think of house ruling anythign I want to know what the rule as written is. I can make a better decision if I better understaning of how a rule works
Personlly I think its clear what the rule is. What you do with it in your game is fine. I never thought it was broken to have it count two-handed and one handed. I think the intent at one point was to have it count as both.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 03, 2010 - 6:10PM
#208
|
|
|
But I am trying to use it as a 20 dollar bill so in my hands its a 20 dollar bill.
If you had a class ability or magic item that allowed you to do so, then it would be considered a 20 dollar bill. Sucks that you don't have that ability/item though .
but I do. It's called the magical sharpie :P
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 05, 2010 - 4:03AM
#209
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
But the rules don't allow it. That's the key difference.
Frankly, I do not see what all the argument is about anyway. For Versatile weapons, for example, all two-handed weapon feats, powers., etc. all work when using one with two hands, so who cares if it is actually a two-handed weapon when thus wielded or not? It's treated just as if it is one, and is not that, for all practical purposes,. the same thing?
Really, what practical difference does it make?
Well there are a number of reasons why this particular discussion is an ongoing debate.
People don't want someone to have an advantage. 'it's not fair that someone can use either benefit from powerattack by using a versatile weapon in either one hand or two hands.'
People want to show they 'know the true rule'
People hate the small race concept and in order to really stick the 'I hate small races concept" they can never, ever, ever, have a two handed weapon, thus showing WotC just how stupid the small race idea is.
People don't want choice. Two handed is from this __ list and this list only, now just how smart are you in picking the 'correct' weapon from this ___ list.
etc.
People always try to make Rules do more things than what's written. It's not about barring things or being reestrictive, it's about the RAW Versatile and what they can and can't do. Small creatures can't use them neighter. Yes they can use Versatile weapons, but they must do so with two hands and don't benefit from the bonus. That's sad. Their short physical dosen't let them weild Great sword, and let them only weild Long sword with two hands. They can only weild smaller weapons in one hand. The Designers made them this way, as far as 2nd Edition.
Nothing new. Except that they made a usage method (two-handed) into a Weapon Classification and put prerequisits demanding them.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 10, 2010 - 8:24AM
#210
|
Date Joined:
Dec 17, 2008
|
But the rules don't allow it. That's the key difference.
Frankly, I do not see what all the argument is about anyway. For Versatile weapons, for example, all two-handed weapon feats, powers., etc. all work when using one with two hands, so who cares if it is actually a two-handed weapon when thus wielded or not? It's treated just as if it is one, and is not that, for all practical purposes,. the same thing?
Really, what practical difference does it make?
Well there are a number of reasons why this particular discussion is an ongoing debate.
People don't want someone to have an advantage. 'it's not fair that someone can use either benefit from powerattack by using a versatile weapon in either one hand or two hands.'
People want to show they 'know the true rule'
People hate the small race concept and in order to really stick the 'I hate small races concept" they can never, ever, ever, have a two handed weapon, thus showing WotC just how stupid the small race idea is.
People don't want choice. Two handed is from this __ list and this list only, now just how smart are you in picking the 'correct' weapon from this ___ list.
etc.
People always try to make Rules do more things than what's written. It's not about barring things or being reestrictive, it's about the RAW Versatile and what they can and can't do. Small creatures can't use them neighter. Yes they can use Versatile weapons, but they must do so with two hands and don't benefit from the bonus. That's sad. Their short physical dosen't let them weild Great sword, and let them only weild Long sword with two hands. They can only weild smaller weapons in one hand. The Designers made them this way, as far as 2nd Edition.
Nothing new. Except that they made a usage method (two-handed) into a Weapon Classification and put prerequisits demanding them.
Once again, none of this can be proven given the limited discussion time spent on it in the PHB. It can be deduced either way, and neither side has any claim with factual support. I always have and always will support versatile in 2 hands = 2 handed weapon (mostly for the sake of small characters, and because it's intuitively obvious to me).
For those that disagree, it's your prerogative, but stop committing a negative proof fallacy by attempting to prove its factuality when nowhere in the PHB does it specifically state "Versatile weapons are still considered one-handed when wielded with both hands". Your argument, like ours, is based upon subjective interpretation, and the issue will not find consensus until Wizards officially addresses it with rules errata for the versatile property itself.
|
|
|
