FAQ Update - Aargh!

[Hypersmurf]

Hey Hype, could you summarize why it matters again?

Why it matters that the FAQ doesn't get stuff wrong, or why it matters that the longsword isn't a two-handed weapon?

An example is the Disarm rules which have come up in this thread.

In 3.5, they said "We're inventing a new weapon sizing system. Here are three new defined game mechanics terms: light weapon; one-handed weapon; two-handed weapon. A shortsword is a light weapon. A longsword is a one-handed weapon. A greatsword is a two-handed weapon. Here are the new Disarm rules, designed to work under the new weapon sizing system: a light weapon takes a -4 penalty on all Disarm checks; a two-handed weapon gains a +4 bonus on all Disarm checks."

There's no ambiguity - the term is defined, the term is used. The only problem is that people remember when, in 3E, someone holding a weapon in two hands gained a +4 bonus to resist a Disarm, and therefore try to make that fit in 3.5. It doesn't. That rule went away. Now a longsword held in one or two hands gains no bonus to either an offensive or defensive Disarm check, and a greatsword gains a +4 bonus whether you're resisting a Disarm, or trying to Disarm someone else.

The sizing system changed; the Disarm rules changed; now the FAQ is trying to overlay the 3E system on 3.5, and it isn't right.

In similar fashion, a lot of people were happy when the Shield spell went to a flat bonus, rather than a directional bonus, because it removed one of the vestiges of facing from the rules. The tower shield makes no mention of any facing in 3.5 either (in 3E, it was related in the FAQ to the Shield spell to describe its function; the Shield spell no longer has facing, and so, both by the Core rules and by the relation to the spell, neither does the tower shield). And yet a recent Dragon Sage Advice has tried to reintroduce the facing aspects of the tower shield.

Answers for 3.5 should be answers for 3.5, not answers for 3E jammed into 3.5 wherever they will approximately fit!

-Hyp.

 

[Spatula]

Sure you do. That is, the book doesn't specify one way or the other, but it makes no sense that you wouldn't. The reason for the bonus, at least as I've always interpreted it, is that you've got the weapon gripped in two hands. There's nothing specific to the greataxe and that makes it more effective at disarming someone;

The greataxe is larger, has more mass, and can be swung with more force.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The greataxe is larger, has more mass, and can be swung with more force.

Here's the problem with that logic, though.

1) A greatsword doesn't have that much more mass than a large longsword or, say, a battleaxe.

2) The bonus applies to all opposed rolls involving disarms--including resisting a disarm. Since resisting a disarm is entirely about being hit, not hitting, the force with which you can swing the blade is irrelevant.

The difference, by my interpretation, is entirely based on the fact that you've got a much stronger grip (and for that matter, much better control) of a weapon wielded in two-hands.

 

[0-hr]

Hrm, so in the rules as written, you'd get a +4 to resist being disarmed even if you held your greatsword in one hand?

I guess it's annoying that the FAQ doesn't follow the rules as written, but the FAQ answer seems to have more common sense behind it. Weapon mass could certainly be a factor, but I think the grip has to matter a lot more. Otherwise wouldn't a two handed sword made out of a light material (like ironwood) lose it's bonus?

Maybe they are finally realizing that their weapon sizing system bites, and they are mistakenly trying to use the FAQ as erratta again...

 

[Hypersmurf]

1) A greatsword doesn't have that much more mass than a large longsword or, say, a battleaxe.

That's right.

A Medium creature with a Medium greatsword is wielding a two-handed weapon. +4 bonus for two-handed weapon.

A Medium creature wielding a Large longsword is wielding a (for him) two-handed weapon, by the rules for inappropriately-sized weapons. +4 bonus for two-handed weapon.

A Large creature wielding a Large longsword is wielding a one-handed weapon. No bonus... but he gets a +4 bonus for being one size category larger than his opponent.

A Large creature wielding a Medium greatsword is wielding (for him) a one-handed weapon, by the rules for inappropriately-sized weapons.. No bonus... but he gets a +4 bonus for being one size category larger than his opponent.

So the Medium Greatsword and the Large Longsword end up with exactly the same bonus, whether they're wielded by a Large or Medium creature.

The system works nicely as written - effectively, a weapon gets a +4 bonus for each "object size" category it is larger than the opposing weapon.

Declaring an appropriately-sized longsword to be a two-handed weapon if wielded in two hands breaks that simple progression.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hrm, so in the rules as written, you'd get a +4 to resist being disarmed even if you held your greatsword in one hand?

You can't use a two-handed weapon in one hand, so it would be treated as disarming a held object, not a weapon. There'd be penalties, not bonuses.

The exception is the lance - a lance used while mounted, as written, is a two-handed weapon that can be wielded in one hand, and it would get the +4.

Maybe they are finally realizing that their weapon sizing system bites, and they are mistakenly trying to use the FAQ as erratta again...

I actually really don't agree. I think the 3E system is much simpler and does the same job just as well... but I think that some of the interactions and subtleties of the way the 3.5 system works shows that they put some thought into it, and once you're comfortable with it, it's just fine.

I don't get the impression this is the designers of the 3.5 system making any changes at all. I get the impression this is someone who doesn't actually get the new sizing system basing rules on an incomplete understanding.

I'm betting if you asked the guy who actually wrote the 3.5 sizing system "Is a Medium longsword wielded in two hands by a Medium character a one-handed or two-handed weapon?", he'd reply "It's a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands."

As referenced in the Combat section, in the Power Attack section, in the Weapon Sizing section...

-Hyp.

 

[jgsugden]

In the end, the 'supremacy' clause that WotC announced regarding primary sources will make this sage advice null and void. Sage advice is great for clarification, but unless a specific intent is stated to overturn a rule, any sage advice that violates the core rules is meaningless.

Here, the Sage said:

Wrong. Table 7–5 in the Player’s Handbook lists weapons
as light, one-handed, or two-handed strictly as a matter of
convenience. These size categories are always relative to the
wielder’s size, as explained in some detail in the section on
weapon size on page 113 in the Player’s Handbook (also see
next question).
When the combat rules speak of “two-handed” weapons,
they’re referring to how the weapon is being used. A Medium
character using a Medium longsword in two hands is using a
“two-handed” weapon. The same character using a Medium
lance in one hand while mounted is using a one-handed
weapon. Light weapons are an exception. If you wield a light
weapon in two hands you get no advantage on damage (see
page 113 in the Player’s Handbook). Likewise, you always
take a –4 penalty on your opposed roll when you’re wielding a
light weapon in a disarm attempt (when someone tries to
disarm you or you try to disarm someone) regardless of
whether you wield it one- or two-handed.

As Hypersmurf has pointed out, this goes against the PHB text. It isn't a 'possible interpretation' of the PHB text. It isn't an attempt to change the text. It is a misunderstanding of what is in the plain (though unnecessarily complex) language of the PHB.

In order for the sage advice's interpretation to become offical, he would need to have said something like, "The tables are wrong. They were meant to say XXXXXXXXX" Instead he says the tables are presented in their current format as a matter of convenience. This is a far shot from calling the tables wrong and intentionally changing their meaning.

The text is difficult to understand, but if you take the time to do so, it is pretty simple to implement. The Sage fails to do so. This is another example of the sage making a ruling without bothering to do his research.

 

[0-hr]

You can't use a two-handed weapon in one hand, so it would be treated as disarming a held object, not a weapon. There'd be penalties, not bonuses.

I don't want to start an argument (since I agree with you), but the SRD says:

"If the item you are attempting to disarm isn’t a melee weapon...".

Seems that could have been worded better. In common parlance (at least around my house), a greatsword is a melee weapon whether it's in two hands, one hand, or lying next to the fireplace. I wish that this said:

"If the item you are attempting to disarm isn't a readied melee weapon...".

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't want to start an argument (since I agree with you), but the SRD says:

"If the item you are attempting to disarm isn’t a melee weapon...".

All right.

Let's make our opposed attack rolls.

With my longsword, I get no bonus for weapon size; we're the same size category, so no bonus there either. BAB + Str + focus + enhancement gives me a total modifier of +13 to my roll. I roll an 8, so that's a total of 21 on the opposed roll.

With your greatsword, we find "Two hands are required to wield such a weapon effectively". So you can't make an opposed attack roll with one hand.

My 21 beats your N/A.

-Hyp.

 

[0-hr]

SRD:

You and the defender make opposed attack rolls with your respective weapons.
...
If the targeted item isn’t a melee weapon, the defender takes a –4 penalty on the roll.

So you still get to roll, but I'm not arguing.