Cadfan's Comments on Everything 4e

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Then why do you embrace a rules interpretation that specifically highlights the 6-second-hand-jive vision of combat?

We have to work flavor into the rules to make sure flavor isn't abusing the rules. From a pure rules perspective I can see a few core choices for the swordmage (based on my views of Versatile weapons):

1) Scimitar; 1d8 damage with the high crit property; +3 AC
2) Greatsword; 1d10 damage; +1 AC
3) Longsword; 1d8+1 damage; +3 AC

Allowing #3 to work seems comparable and fair compared to choices 1 and 2. So this rules interpretation meets by criteria of not being superior to other choices (although I really think 1 and 3 are the equal ones, but it was WoTC that decided 1 point of average damage = -2 AC).

No, you don't. You say you do, but then you engage in a series of questionable rules interpretations so as to permit you to repeatedly let go of your weapon at the end of every turn, then wield your weapon at the beginning of the next turn. Your vision of combat is a mechanistic one at best.

No it isn't. I envision the swordmage gripping his longsword in two hands most of the time. In those instances where an attack would hit him if he only had +1 AC, he reacts by conjuring a shield of force. He's able to do this reactively because he is weilding a Versatile weapon. I envision this reaction as one similar to that of the wizard, who can wait to discover he has been hit before triggering a bonus to defense that causes the hit to become a miss.

Lets stop and think about it for a second.

By your logic there's no plausible explanation for why a two handed weapon wielding swordmage couldn't gain the +3 arcane shield benefit. He can do the same hand jive.

Because of the reactive nature I envision, a swordmage weilding a heavier two-handed weapon couldn't react fast enough to get the bonus.

 

[Cadfan]

You've conveniently forgotten the attack bonus for longswords versus the attack bonus for scimitars, I see.

Look, I'm going to let this go. I think its pretty clearly munchkinism, and that most fair DMs would recognize it as such. The rules are extremely straight forward when given a face value reading. It is only when one starts coming up with complex rationales based on unclear, undefined areas of the rules (switching from a one to a two handed wield, and back, etc) that one arrives at problems. I mean, in this thread alone, look at some of what we've heard to justify this shady attempt at gaining a measly +1 damage. The idea that two handed weapons won't work with this strategy because you can't let go of them fast enough, for example. Or the idea that one of the balancing factors involved in the hand jive system is the way that, after you've quick drawn your weapon to make an attack of opportunity, you lose your AC bonus because you can't let go of your weapon if it isn't your turn. Or the idea that one is conjuring an arcane shield, rather than creating an arcane shield through a specific fighting style, even though you can't conjure the arcane shield when your hands are empty. Or the idea that switching from a two handed grip on a weapon to a one handed grip on a weapon is a free action, but adding a hand to a two handed weapon currently held in one hand is a minor action, because the latter is switching from "not-wielding" to "wielding," which is most analogous to "drawing" the weapon, while the former is... well, the speaker hadn't thought about it, but the former is switching from one form of "wielding" to another form of "wielding," apparently without using any action to "draw" the weapon, even though it seems the same.

All of these mental gymnastics in order to delve deep into an extremely straightforward piece of text and obtain a +1 bonus to damage, well, rubs me the wrong way. Nothing else in the game appears to be written in this arcane of a manner, and the text has a straight forward, reasonable interpretation that does not require any of this rigmarole.

Given the choice between a complex interpretation that relies on uncertain interpretations of vague areas of the rules and which lacks a consistent in-game explanation, and a straight forward reading that takes the text at its face value, I'll stick with the latter.

 

[GlaziusF]

All of these mental gymnastics in order to delve deep into an extremely straightforward piece of text and obtain a +1 bonus to damage, well, rubs me the wrong way. Nothing else in the game appears to be written in this arcane of a manner, and the text has a straight forward, reasonable interpretation that does not require any of this rigmarole.

Yes it does!

And that interpretation is that the difference between, say, a swordmage who only wields a bastard sword and a swordmage who only wields a fullblade is that the bastard swordmage can swap between a one-handed grip and a two-handed grip as a free action, so that at any point he can use the most advantageous of the two states. The fullblademage has to swap between wielding his weapon in two hands and carrying it in one with minor actions, though Quick Draw will let him get around needing a minor action to wield it again.

That's it! Everything else is just examples!

You don't get to ask a complicated question and then complain when someone gives you a complicated answer.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

You've conveniently forgotten the attack bonus for longswords versus the attack bonus for scimitars, I see.

I didn't "conveniently" forget the larger proficiency bonus, I just plain forgot. Trying to assign motives to my posts?

Look, I'm going to let this go. I think its pretty clearly munchkinism, and that most fair DMs would recognize it as such.

Ahh, there's the implied motive. I'm a munchkin. Name calling when others don't agree with your POV? I had some respect for your posting style, now I'm not so sure it's deserved. And it's kind of tough for me to be involved in munchkinism since I only DM and I am giving my players the benefit of the doubt here.

The rules are extremely straight forward when given a face value reading.

They obviously are not as straight forward as you believe. More than one person here disagrees with you.

It is only when one starts coming up with complex rationales based on unclear, undefined areas of the rules (switching from a one to a two handed wield, and back, etc) that one arrives at problems. I mean, in this thread alone, look at some of what we've heard to justify this shady attempt at gaining a measly +1 damage. The idea that two handed weapons won't work with this strategy because you can't let go of them fast enough, for example. Or the idea that one is conjuring an arcane shield, rather than creating an arcane shield through a specific fighting style, even though you can't conjure the arcane shield when your hands are empty.

All of these mental gymnastics in order to delve deep into an extremely straightforward piece of text and obtain a +1 bonus to damage, well, rubs me the wrong way. Nothing else in the game appears to be written in this arcane of a manner, and the text has a straight forward, reasonable interpretation that does not require any of this rigmarole.

Given the choice between a complex interpretation that relies on uncertain interpretations of vague areas of the rules and which lacks a consistent in-game explanation, and a straight forward reading that takes the text at its face value, I'll stick with the latter.

I'm not doing "mental gymnastics." I just picture a different fighting style than you do and I don't mind my players gaining a "measly +1 to damage."

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

FWIW the D&D Q&A Section states that switching hands is a free action:

D&D Q&A