FAQ Update - Aargh!

[James McMurray]

Just read the entries in question, and they make perfect sense to me. If you're wielding a weapon in one hand you're wielding a one-handed weapon. If you're wielding it in two hands, you're wielding a two-handed weapon. If you're trying to figure out how you'll wield a weapon not of your size, then you look at whether it is light, one-handed, or two-handed.

Why the blown gasket? I assume its because of your overly-anal (IMO) attenton to detail that demands that everything must always line up in the rules?

Sometimes I wonder why you even play this game, given how dissatisfied you are with the ruleset. Perhaps you should be playing Star Fleet Battles and Rolemaster instead (two great games, but they're very rules heavy).

 

[Flyspeck23]

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.

Every interpretation has it's merit. No, really. It's right there in the FAQ:

Table 7–5 in the Player’s Handbook lists weapons as light, one-handed, or two-handed strictly as a matter of convenience.

As a matter of fact, after reading this FAQ I suddenly don't feel conveniend at all when looking at that table.

Is this a new trend? "Convenience" seems to be the sage's favorite word... and each time he uses it, you just know that everything that's coming thereafter is (in the sage's own word) muddy, to say the least.

 

[dcollins]

Table 7–5 in the Player’s Handbook lists weapons as light, one-handed, or two-handed strictly as a matter of convenience. (FAQ)

I seriously think that the Sage has just rejected the weapon-sizing changes that Andy Collins wrote into 3.5. As far as Skip is concerned the 3.0 weapon sizes are "really" there, lurking in the background, and the 3.5 chart is just one perspective for interpreting them.

Very happy to still be playing 3.0 at this point.

 

[Stalker0]

What does this ruling hurt? I agree, a longsword weilded two-handed should get the +4 against being disarmed.

I mean, is there sideeffect of this ruling that will create some major problem or something?

 

[Len]

(This reverses the advice the Sage gave about bastard swords and Small characters in earlier FAQs.)

Heh, you're always complaining about the Sage's rulings, and when they finally overturn one:

Aargh!

It's true, they are out to get you.

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.

The problem is guessing what they "meant", or "will mean" in the next FAQ.

 

[Hardhead]

I like this FAQ, simply because from now on, whenever someone claims that 3.5 weapon size rules are more intuitive, I can just point to this FAQ as proof that they're wrong.



.

 

[Christian]

Evidently, someone decided that a halfling with EWP: bastard sword being able to swing a Medium bastard sword two-handed for 1d10 damage was somehow unbalancing.

Hey-I hadn't even read the 3.5 FAQ before, but there's a blatant wrong answer in the old section as well ... Anyone ever noticed this one before?

"A creature with reach 0 cannot flank an opponent ... Such a creature can neither gain a flanking bonus from an ally nor grant a flanking bonus to an ally, not even when two or more of them enter the same foe's square and attack." (FAQ p. 16)

" ... up to two Tiny stirges can occupy the same space as the human, and they provide each other with flanking against the human." (DMG 3.5 pg. 29)

Grump. Somebody needs to edit these things a little better ...

 

[Piratecat]

On the pre-release publisher email list for 3.5, lots of publishers tried to tell Ed that the new weapon sizing rules were confusing. WotC disagreed.

Nice to see that once in a while, common sense turns out to be correct.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Just read the entries in question, and they make perfect sense to me. If you're wielding a weapon in one hand you're wielding a one-handed weapon. If you're wielding it in two hands, you're wielding a two-handed weapon.

If that's the case, then why are there so many references to "a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, or a two-handed weapon"?

If a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands were a two-handed weapon, most of the words in that sentence (that appears in several places) are unnecessary.

Its existence demonstrates that the designers of the new weapon sizing system were fairly certain that a longsword wielded in two hands is a one-handed weapon. One wielded in two hands. As distinct from a two-handed weapon, which is defined in the equipment section as one that requires two hands to wield. A longsword does not requires two hands to wield; it is a one-handed weapon, even when you're using it in two hands.

As for a bastard sword really being a two-handed weapon, even though it's pretending to be a one-handed weapon on the table...

...!?

Sometimes I wonder why you even play this game, given how dissatisfied you are with the ruleset.

I'm fine with the ruleset.

I'm dissatisfied with "official interpretations" not getting the rules right.

-Hyp.

 

[0-hr]

Hey Hype, could you summarize why it matters again? I could't dig up that old thread and can't recall all of the implications. I remember thinking "hmm, good point" when I read it - but I don't remember what the point was anymore