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.
power attack question
- Thread starter Flipguarder
- Start date
Flipguarder
First Post
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?
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
First Post
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
