power attack question

[Flipguarder]

Quick one, I promise. If I hold a versatile weapon in two hands, do I get the extra damage from power attack as though I was using a two handed weapon?

[Dalzig]

Absolute Literal view: No. You are still attacking with a one-handed weapon, even if you are using it with two-hands. (Current RAW supported by Wizards, AFAIK)

More Lenient view: Sure, why not?

[Mahali]

Dalzig is correct. RAW says no.

Previously someone quoted a CS responses (and maybe one of designers) saying versatile is supposed to give you the best of both worlds.

If that's true I don't know why they'd bother to give it +1 damage since other feats will give it the best of both worlds.

In our game we stick with RAW. They're one handed weapons you can use in two hands for a +1 damage bonus.

[eriktheguy]

Same in my campaigns, you need a two handed weapon to use two handed powers.

[Stalker0]

I figure what's the point of versatile if you don't get the benefit of two handed weapons when you use it two handed, so I would allow it.

But strict raw, no.

[shadowoflameth]

wielding it two handed doesn't make it a two handed weapon. You could wield other weapons two handed even if they are not versatile, but there is no game mechanic benefit (unless perhaps if you are very inventive and cheesy). With a versatile weapon two handed you get +1 to damage. With power attack, you would also get the bonus for power attacking with a one handed weapon.

[Flipguarder]

Originally Posted by shadowoflameth

wielding it two handed doesn't make it a two handed weapon.

Strictly speaking, that's exactly false.

PHB 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."

[Parlan]

Originally Posted by Flipguarder

Strictly speaking, that's exactly false.

PHB 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."

No. Strictly speaking, that language is ambiguous.

"A one-handed weapon is light enough or balanced enough to be used in one hand. A two-handed weapon is two heavy or unbalanced to be used without two hands."

So does "using [versatile weapons] as two-handed weapons" entitle one to all the benefits of two-handed weapons?

The definition of "Versatile" suggests not. "Versatile weapons are one-handed, but you can use them two-handed. If you do, you deal an extra point of damage when you roll damage for the weapon."

Notice that they are only "used two-handed" and not, e.g., "treated as two-handed weapons" here.

I think the terminology in the definition of versatile carries more weight than your quote; it's "crunchier".

That said, I don't think it makes a big difference one way or the other. Especially if someone is blowing a feat on a bastard sword or something.

[Flipguarder]

Isn't the treating of your quote over mine, as measured in "crunchiness", simply a veiled attempt at disproving me without any evidence?

To say that the language in my quote is ambiguous (a point which I'm willing to agree to) and then give an equally ambiguous quote as evidence of the contrary is quite unreasonable.

[Mahali]

Originally Posted by Flipguarder

PHB 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."

The property of Versatile says they're one-handed weapons.

To find out how versatile weapons function you looks at the description of the Versatile property, not the descriptive text you quote.

[Kordeth]

Personally, I'd rather not let bastard swords overshadow two weapons for the cost of a single feat (they're already better than longswords thanks to d10 damage, and that's fine--but allow them to be treated as two-handed weapons in all respects and they're better greatswords than greatswords thanks to +1 damage), so I go with the "versatile weapons are still one-handed weapons" interpretation. On the other hand, that creates issues for Small two-handed weapon fighters, but the rules for small characters are kind of borked anyways, so I'd rather fix those than leave versatile as a kind of patch.

[Flipguarder]

1. one handed superior weapons are generally about the same power as the two handed below them in "tier". See:
Broadsword, scythe
Waraxe, great axe.

sure the bastard sword is on the high end of power in terms of these comparisons but its not that powerful

2. what other benefit is there besides power attack, and can you come up with a combination that is clearly broken?

[DracoSuave]

Well... Mike Mearls has gone on record as saying they intended that Versatile let you use the weapon for whichever situation you want. One handed to benefit from one-handed stuff, and then two-handed to benefit from two-handed stuff.

Now, I checked my PHB and his name is on the cover. Apparently he co-wrote the damn book.

If -that- is not rules-as-intended, nothing is.

But regarding Rules As Written:

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

In the D&D4 rules templating, using something as something else permits you to benefit from feats/abilities/powers involving that something else.

For example, Wizards of The Spiral using a sword as a wand get to benefit from all wand stuff with that sword.
Using a songblade as a bard implement means you can benefit with all implementy stuff with that songblade (like getting that enhancement bonus.
Using a power as a melee basic attack when permitted allows you to use it at the end of a charge.

So, yes, using a one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon allows you to treat it as a two-handed weapon. That's what versatile does.

Otherwise, it would do nothing except give you +1 damage, rather than allow you to switch between one-handed and two-handed if you're going for a flexible build. For example: A barbarian can use a versatile weapon and a small shield and still use his two-handed weapon powers.


Besides, it's grokkable. To say a weapon that says 'you can use this as a two-handed weapon' can't benefit from it is counter-intuitive. It doesn't make sense, and players' instincts don't go in that direction. It might make sense from a pure rules standpoint (maybe) but it doesn't have versimilitude.

Originally Posted by Kordeth

Personally, I'd rather not let bastard swords overshadow two weapons for the cost of a single feat

Superior weapons get to do that. A fullblade overshadows both the greatsword (1d12 damage) and the greataxe (+1 to attack, while still getting highcrit)

You spend a feat, you get a superior weapon. That's kinda the point of it. If the bastard-sword weren't better than a greatsword for a feat, there'd be no point taking the bastard-sword if you weren't a halfling/gnome.

And a bastard sword doesn't overshadow a greatsword with a feat... at higher tiers the greatsword with feat does more damage. If it's a goliath+greatsword+feat, the greatsword does more damage in heroic. Comparing a weapon that requires a feat to use with a weapon that doesn't, but without the benefit of that extra feat is NOT a reasonable comparison to make.