FAQ Update - Aargh!

[Hypersmurf]

So you still get to roll...

That's if it's not a melee weapon.

You just contended that a greatsword is still a melee weapon, even if you're holding it in a way that you can't use it.

If it's a melee weapon, you make an attack roll.

If it's not a melee weapon, you make an attack roll with a -4 penalty.

If it's a melee weapon too large for you to use, you can't make an attack roll with it... so either a/ you automatically fail, or b/ you treat it as "not a melee weapon" and take a -4 on your roll, and don't gain the benefit of any weapon-specific bonuses.

-Hyp.

 

[Abraxas]

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.

I've been wondering for a bit now if instead of this, the recent sage rulings are the result of different game design camps - Skip W. and his bunch vs Andy C. and his bunch. Its likely he does know the RAW but prefers the 3.0 version better for some of those things that have been argued as not needing changing in the first place.

Just a thought

 

[Ranger REG]

Sure you get the cool 2-for-1 Power Attack bonus for wielding a longsword in 2 hands, but you do NOT get the +4 bonus on the opposed roll for a disarm attempt for doing so, etc, etc.

Well, I don't know about you, guys, but if a character wants to wield a longsword with both of his hands, he will get the +4 bonus on opposed roll in a disarm attempt.

Unless you can give me a reason why you shouldn't get the bonus due to added leverage/assistance, courtesy of the second hand.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well, I don't know about you, guys, but if a character wants to wield a longsword with both of his hands, he will get the +4 bonus on opposed roll in a disarm attempt.

Unless you can give me a reason why you shouldn't get the bonus due to added leverage/assistance, courtesy of the second hand.

What if a character wants to wield a shortsword or light mace with both hands?

Does the added leverage/assistance courtesy of the second hand provide no advantage there?

-Hyp.

 

[Tatsukun]

If you hate it so much, just do like we did and house rule that only a Bastard Sword (remember the old days, it's a hand-and-a-half-sword) can be used in either two hands of one (if you have the EWP).

No two handed longswords, if you make a longsword with a handle big enough for two hands, it's a bastard sword.

As for hafted weapons (axes, hammers and the like), they work as per RAW.

-T

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you hate it so much, just do like we did and house rule that only a Bastard Sword (remember the old days, it's a hand-and-a-half-sword) can be used in either two hands of one (if you have the EWP).

I don't hate the fact that a longsword can be used in two hands or one. But either way, by the RAW, it's a one-handed weapon.

As for hafted weapons (axes, hammers and the like), they work as per RAW.

Yes, but the RAW and the FAQ don't say the same thing...

-Hyp.

 

[Hardhead]

I've been wondering for a bit now if instead of this, the recent sage rulings are the result of different game design camps - Skip W. and his bunch vs Andy C. and his bunch. Its likely he does know the RAW but prefers the 3.0 version better for some of those things that have been argued as not needing changing in the first place.

Just a thought

This actually seems very likely to me.

 

[Ranger REG]

What if a character wants to wield a shortsword or light mace with both hands?

Does the added leverage/assistance courtesy of the second hand provide no advantage there?

Well, it's my judgment call as DM but yeah, it should, even though the light weapon won't benefit from the added Str bonus to damage (i.e., x1.5).

 

[Camarath]

Hypersmurf what do you think about the application of the prone penalty on melee attacks to grapple checks in the Sage's new Bob and Grog example on page 16?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hypersmurf what do you think about the application of the prone penalty on melee attacks to grapple checks in the Sage's new Bob and Grog example on page 16?

ATTACK BONUS
Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is:

Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier

Grapple Checks
Repeatedly in a grapple, you need to make opposed grapple checks against an opponent. A grapple check is like a melee attack roll. Your attack bonus on a grapple check is:

Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier

A grapple check is like a melee attack roll. It is defined as an attack bonus. It is described identically, save that the Size modifier becomes a special Size modifier.

I've never had a problem applying the morale bonus from Bless, bonuses from bardic music, luck bonuses, etc etc that affect melee attack rolls to grapple checks. I know that one's debated, but I'm on the "it's a form of attack roll" side of the debate, so the prone modifier applying doesn't bother me.

I'm inclined to apply the penalty from Power Attack and the bonus from Weapon Focus: Grapple to grapple checks as well.

-Hyp.