2HW vs. Versatile for Feats?

[RedBeardJim]

I sent WOTC's Customer Service people a question about this last month (due to discussions about Versatile weapons and Small character), and got the following answer:

When a weapon with the Versatile property is wielded in two hands, is it considered a "two-handed weapon" for the purpose of things such as the Fighter Weapon Talent, Power Attack, or Barbarian at-will attacks like Howling Strike, or is it still considered to be a "one-handed weapon"?

Hello (snip),

Thank you for contacting us. For the purpose of things such as the Fighter Weapon Talent, Power Attack, or Barbarian at-will attacks like Howling Strike, a Versatile weapon is still considered to be a one-handed weapon even if it is wielded in two hands. I hope this information is useful.

Please let me know if you need anymore help!

 

[Flipguarder]

I still fail to see the problem if it works either way.

 

[Obryn]

I still fail to see the problem if it works either way.

He asked for a rule. He's gotten answers regarding the rule. Three of them, actually, from the books, Mearls, and CS.

If he'd asked if it would work or be fun either way, he'd get answers to that question.

Presumably, he knows that his game won't fall apart and the secret rules police won't come to his door no matter which way he plays it. That's a given.

What's your issue here?

-O

 

[Flipguarder]

No problem really. We just have hearsay that Mike Mearls says its intended a certain way, and that Customer service says its another way.

I don't exactly know why I have so much fervor over the issue, but it seems like a completely harmless rule and can EASILY be interpreted either way. And from what I see there isn't a definite answer to his question.

Maybe I just want this one to stay amorphous.

 

[mneme]

I don't exactly know why I have so much fervor over the issue, but it seems like a completely harmless rule and can EASILY be interpreted either way. And from what I see there isn't a definite answer to his question.
/quote]
There is, actually, a big problem.

Small characters cannot wield two-handed weapons.

OTOH, they can wield versatile weapons two handed.

So if one follows the Customer Service ruling, halflings cannot be effective barbarians (as 3/4 of the at-wills require a two-handed weapons), nor can they be any other category that requires two-handed weapons.

 

[Flipguarder]

I don't exactly know why I have so much fervor over the issue, but it seems like a completely harmless rule and can EASILY be interpreted either way. And from what I see there isn't a definite answer to his question.
/quote]
There is, actually, a big problem.

Small characters cannot wield two-handed weapons.

OTOH, they can wield versatile weapons two handed.

So if one follows the Customer Service ruling, halflings cannot be effective barbarians (as 3/4 of the at-wills require a two-handed weapons), nor can they be any other category that requires two-handed weapons.

That actually is a big problem, I did not see that. Good catch!

 

[LittleFuzzy]

That depends on where this questions comes up.

In a home game I would always go with the stated intent of the designers.

If this however comes up at official games (like RPGA) I would go with what the designers have actually written down in the RAW, even if this contradicts what they later stated to have been their original intent (if they don't write down what they meant, they'll need to issue official errata and be more carefull what they're actually writting down next time)

Understandable, but the RAW is ambiguous. Obryn is reading it a particular way, but that isn't the only reasonable way to read it. And if a DM in an official game has to rule on an ambiguous bit of RAW, and happens to have heard a designer express the Rules as Intended in a crystal-clear fashion, the way to rule on the ambiguity is pretty obvious.

 

[Sunglare]

I think it's a balance issue. I rule that it has to be in the Two-handed weapon catagoery to benifit from two-handed powers and feats.
When this question first came up most people were just using Versitle weapons and not two-handed weapons so they can get that extra +1 damage.
Then you had the whole Bastard sword vs Greatsword argument and people in favor of versitile weapons counting as two-handed weapons would say that Bastard sword should do more damage then a greatsword because it is a Superior Weapon. I call false on that, Bastard Sword is a Superior Weapon because it is better then a Long Sword not a Great Sword. There should be a reason somebody would want to use a Great Sword instead of a Bastard sword and that is handled by saying Versitle weapons are not Two-Handed weapons.

 

[Flipguarder]

Why should people get a better benefit out of using a military two handed weapon than a using two hands while holding a superior weapon?

 

[rainsinger]

Why should people get a better benefit out of using a military two handed weapon than a using two hands while holding a superior weapon?

That's actually where this question pretty much came from... here's the long version:

A guy joined my wed. group, and he had not played ANY 4E at all. He decided he wanted to be a fighter with a big sword, but wanted to be able to use a shield if needed, etc... so I explained that he could potentially have a big sword and also a sword/shield combo, but better off would be versatile weapon with a shield. Then of course I got to thinking though, after he gave me the front-line badass description of what he wanted to play, that it seemed silly that all of the really good fighter feats were almost exclusively for 2H heavy blades... high crit on brash and such.

So then we talked about it briefly and I went ahead and told him that for the purposes of my campaign, when he's using a versatile weapon 2H, that he gets any benefits directly related to using a 2H weapon (basically anyway). But then I still wanted to see if there'd been anything official...

and... away we go.

Thanks for the discussion guys. I'm going to go with my original instinct and just call it a houserule for now, and I especially agree with the comment somewhere above that this is not even on the list of things I would consider seriously wrong with 4E (though I still like the system in general).