Rogue Weapon Talent Use/Abuse?

[rushlight]

This is exactly why you bring more dice to the table than you can play with. When someone tries this sillyness, there should be an immediate and punishing rain of dice upon the offender. Preferably d12s for bludgeoning and d4s for piercing.

 

[windsofdarkness]

I find it hard to believe that people would actually stoop to such loathsome tactics to gain an obviously unintended bonus.


As a long time DM I reserve the right to deliver a sound walloping to whoever might be so foolish to suggest such a thing in any game I might run.




Seriously, this is absolutely ludicrous.

 

[TheGlow]

Sall good. Thats when a bunch of Skeletons come out, immune to shuriken and dagger damage.

 

[jtrowell]

This is exactly why you bring more dice to the table than you can play with. When someone tries this sillyness, there should be an immediate and punishing rain of dice upon the offender. Preferably d12s for bludgeoning and d4s for piercing.

Is it an immediate interrupt or reaction ?

 

[SableWyvern]

In D&D it appears that "to wield" means to "attack with", not simply "to use". It's definitely a poor choice of wording that could have been defined more clearly.

In general terms, a combatant dual wielding an axe and dagger is clearly using and wielding both weapons, even if he can only attack with one at a time. Note: "in general terms", rather than by rule terminology.

I am quite sure that the intent of the rules is that a rogue only gains +1 to hit when making an attack roll to see if he hits with a dagger, and only gains a die-type increase to shuriken damage. I don't think it's quite as clear as some people are claiming, however, and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to people who may have genuinely believed "to wield" in this instance didn't specifically refer to making attack rolls for that weapon.

 

[Kzach]

I can't believe this is a serious thread or that people are taking it seriously.

And yet my Steve Jobs thread gets trashed and turned into an Apple bashing session.

Bah! I'm taking my ball home!

 

[small pumpkin man]

Hey, a bandwagon! Let me see...

 

[Byronic]

Is it an immediate interrupt or reaction ?

The first few times it's an immediate reaction but then you kinda get a feeling for when they're going to say something stupid and it becomes an interrupt.

Seriously, I think in some games they put "for mature players" simply to bypass this kind of stuff.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

4e's not written as a binding legal document (or a Magic: the Gathering rules compendium). If someone wants to break it by reinterpreting words to mean different things, and they can convince their group, then they can break it.

I forget the exact quote, but someone on the design team mentioned that they wrote the game to be used by reasonable people sitting at a table intending to have a good time together, so they didn't feel they needed to make the books read like a legal contract.

So, if you want to debate your DM into letting you get a bonus to your hand crossbow because you have a shuriken in the other hand, you go ahead and have a good time with that. I'm comfortable with the "rain of dice" rebuttal, myself.

 

[Mengu]

The shuriken is an odd one, but I can see the argument for a Rogue with TWF and Weapon Proficiency Rapier using a Rapier in one hand and dagger in the other. He would gain the +1 bonus to attack rolls with the Rapier, because he is indeed wielding a dagger. Thanks to two weapon fighting he would also gain a +1 damage. I see nothing wrong wih this interpretation, as a matter of fact, it is likely an intended result.