FAQ Update - Aargh!

[Hypersmurf]

All the answers on weapon sizing are wrong!

"The bastard sword and dwarven waraxe are shown on Table 7–5 as one-handed exotic weapons, but they're really two-handed weapons"?

"A Medium character using a Medium longsword in two hands is using a 'two-handed' weapon"?

Good grief.

-Hyp.

 

[Flyspeck23]

"A Medium character using a Medium longsword in two hands is using a 'two-handed' weapon"?

So now it's official...

I definetly have to take a look at that FAQ. Seems to be a pretty good read

 

[Mouseferatu]

"A Medium character using a Medium longsword in two hands is using a 'two-handed' weapon"?

Well, I haven't looked at the chart, so I can't speak for context. But that's actually correct, if they're speaking in terms of the character gaining the advantages--that is, Str bonus x 1.5, +4 to opposed disarms--of using a two-handed weapon.

 

[Legildur]

I think what Hypersmurf is struggling to articulate, as he suffers an acute spasm, is that wielding a one-handed weapon in 2 hands is different to wielding a two-handed weapon.

Sure you get the cool 2-for-1 Power Attack bonus for wielding a longsword in 2 hands, but you do NOT get the +4 bonus on the opposed roll for a disarm attempt for doing so, etc, etc.

Are you okay over there Smurf? Had any rain lately? ;-)

 

[Mouseferatu]

...but you do NOT get the +4 bonus on the opposed roll for a disarm attempt for doing so, etc, etc.

Sure you do. That is, the book doesn't specify one way or the other, but it makes no sense that you wouldn't. The reason for the bonus, at least as I've always interpreted it, is that you've got the weapon gripped in two hands. There's nothing specific to the greataxe and that makes it more effective at disarming someone; it's only more effective because you've got a tighter and stronger grip, due to having two hands on it rather than one. It's no easier to disarm someone who's wielding a longsword two-handed than it is a greatsword, and just as advantageous when attempting to disarm someone else.

If there's a rule that states otherwise, I haven't seen it, and it certainly doesn't make any bit of sense...

 

[youspoonybard]

Hyp, I'm really beginning to get the idea that Skip thinks you are trying to take his job, as so is out to get you at every turn. : P

 

[0-hr]

There are other, more subtle differences, that folks have gone to great lengths to belabor in previous threads. All of that hyper-literal rules interpretation has just been boondoggled once again by WotC's casual reading.

The game, it seems, can be run most accurately by reading the rules once - very fast - and then making your best guess as to what is meant. Going over the text again and again with cross references and in-depth research as if preparing for court, leads to some fun discussions and arguments - but ultimately doesn't jibe with the way the WotC thinks the game works.

 

[MorganKiller]

"The bastard sword and dwarven waraxe are shown on Table 7–5 as one-handed exotic weapons, but they're really two-handed weapons"?

"A Medium character using a Medium longsword in two hands is using a 'two-handed' weapon"?

Now...
That's my answer when someone asks me why I refuse to play 3.5...

 

[Darklone]

It's all a secret conspiracy to make us doubt 3.5s rules and buy the soon to be announced 4.0!

 

[0-hr]

It's all a secret conspiracy to make us doubt 3.5s rules and buy the soon to be announced 4.0!

Nah, a 4.0 version would require too much work. They'll just change 16 pages, call it verion 3.75, and charge us all another $90.

Or maybe they'll make "common", "uncommon", and "rare" rules and randomly distribute them thoughout different books. That way we'll have to buy tons of books in order to get a playable game!