FAQ Update - Aargh!

[Plane Sailing]

I think this helps to illustrate the foolishness in making rules too complex. The various designers have over-complicated things and produced confusion, where a simple and clean solution would have been much easier and better.

It is strange that the designers occasionally seem to strain out gnats (weapon sizing "realism") while swallowing camels (hit points for damage - as generalistic as you can get)

 

[Mouseferatu]

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.

It's a false progression, though. Or rather, it's one that has no bearing on the matter at hand.

The difference in weapon sizes should not be the only factor in determining who has the advantage in terms of a disarming contest. Wielding a weapon in two hands grants a substantial advantage in terms of leverage, strength, and control. It does, in fact, grant even more of an advantage than the relative weights of the weaon. The fact that it may "break a progression" doesn't change the fact that it's both logically accurate in a real world sense, and it doesn't in any way break or harm game balance in a mechanical sense.

I don't see the FAQ as changing the rule. I see it as clarifying what was poorly--or at least unclearly--written in the PHB in the first place.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't see the FAQ as changing the rule. I see it as clarifying what was poorly--or at least unclearly--written in the PHB in the first place.

But that's the thing. It wasn't unclearly written. It was very clearly written.

"Two-handed weapon" is a defined term. "One-handed weapon" is a defined term. A two-handed weapon gains a bonus to Disarm checks. A one-handed weapon does not.

Whether it makes physical sense, or whether it's balanced, or whether it worked that way in 3E - a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands gain no bonus to Disarm checks under the 3.5 rules.

The FAQ ruling might make physical sense, and it might be balanced, and it might have worked that way (sort of) in 3E... but it's not what the rules say in 3.5.

-Hyp.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Whether it makes physical sense, or whether it's balanced, or whether it worked that way in 3E - a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands gain no bonus to Disarm checks under the 3.5 rules.

The FAQ ruling might make physical sense, and it might be balanced, and it might have worked that way (sort of) in 3E... but it's not what the rules say in 3.5.

-Hyp.

Okay, that's fair. (Bet you didn't see that coming. )

But...

If the FAQ ruling makes physical sense, and is balanced, and is overall a better call than the way 3.5 was written, why does it matter? Yes, the correction should have been labeled as official errata, but the fact that it wasn't shouldn't prevent it from being accepted as accurate. Not only is it the better ruling, but I still believe it's what the writers of the 3.5 PHB probably meant. No, it's not what they wrote; I admit that. But it simply doesn't make any sense the way they wrote it, so I have to assume they goofed.

Therefore, the FAQ solves a problem from the core rules. It neglects to label itself properly as a solution, yes, but that doens't make it "wrong."

 

[Hypersmurf]

If the FAQ ruling is overall a better call than the way 3.5 was written...

That's a matter of opinion.

... but I still believe it's what the writers of the 3.5 PHB probably meant.

I don't agree, and I don't think the rules as written are "a problem".

They take a nice simple mechanic to handle Disarm and Sunder: Bigger is Better. It's easy to remember, and once you know the rule, it's intuitive.

Does 3E's lack of facing make for a realistic model? Does Armor-as-AC make for a realistic model? Does turn-based initiative make for a realistic model?

Not really. But that doesn't mean that more realistic rules are better. It means they're more realistic. But too much realism can complicate things and bog down play.

3.5 has a nice simple rule - Bigger Weapon, Bigger Bonus.

The FAQ rulings take that simple system and - apparently through a lack of understanding of that system, judging by the answers - get it wrong.

It's not proposed as a correction for mechanics the designers have decided are flawed and shouldn't have been written. It's written as an explanation for how the rules work... and doesn't get those rules right.

That's a bad answer, IMO.

-Hyp.

 

[Flyspeck23]

I don't agree, and I don't think the rules as written are "a problem".

They take a nice simple mechanic to handle Disarm and Sunder: Bigger is Better. It's easy to remember, and once you know the rule, it's intuitive.

Does 3E's lack of facing make for a realistic model? Does Armor-as-AC make for a realistic model? Does turn-based initiative make for a realistic model?

Not really. But that doesn't mean that more realistic rules are better. It means they're more realistic. But too much realism can complicate things and bog down play.

3.5 has a nice simple rule - Bigger Weapon, Bigger Bonus.

The FAQ rulings take that simple system and - apparently through a lack of understanding of that system, judging by the answers - get it wrong.

It's not proposed as a correction for mechanics the designers have decided are flawed and shouldn't have been written. It's written as an explanation for how the rules work... and doesn't get those rules right.

That's a bad answer, IMO.

Once again Hypersmurf sums up my view pretty well.

D&D/d20 is a game with lots and lots of abstract rules. While more realism is fine now and than, it should be obvious that the rules can't be 100% realistic.

Tinkering with working simple rules isn't a good thing (most of the time ). WotC could have said "Ok, 3.5 weapon sizing is crap - we'll go back to 3.0, with the following changes..." and that might have been fine. But that's not what they did.

These new parts of the FAQ somehow look more like errata - and that can't be good...

 

[Joshua Randall]

FYI, to add to the debate:

Monkey Grip [General] (Complete Warrior)
You are able to use a larger weapon than other people your size.
Prerequisite: BAB +1
Benefit: You can use melee weapons one size category larger than you are with a -2 penalty on the attack roll, but the amount of effort it takes you to use the weapon does not change.

For instance, a Large longsword (a one-handed weapon for a Large creature) is considered a two-handed weapon for a Medium creature that does not have this feat. For a Medium creature that has this feat, it is still considered a one-handed weapon.

You can wield a larger light weapon as a light weapon, or a larger two-handed weapon in two hands. You cannot wield a larger weapon in your off hand, and you cannot use this feat with a double weapon.

 

[Aaron L]

I think the +4 against disarms for a weapon in two hands is to represent the fact that you have 2 HANDS holding on to it, NOT the fact that it is a bigger weapon. I don't get the fuss.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

I think Hyp's just upset that this nerfs the two-handed-power-attacking-lance-in-one-hand cheese.

 

[jgsugden]

I'm not sure about Hyper, but I am sure about why the Sage's 'Advice' upsets me: He got it wrong. He is their 'expert' and he got it wrong.

I've played hundreds of hours of D&D since 3.5 came out. The situations that this would effect have only come up a small handful of times. When those situations arose, I can not remember a single time that the roll was cloe enough that this type of thing actually would have made a difference. In other words, in pratical play in the games in which I play, I consider this a very minor issue with which to be concerned.

That is not the point. The point is that there are rules for the game to cover things that *may* be important to a game. Once those rules are established, they should be used.

The rules in the PHB, though a bit awkward to learn, are simple and easy to use once learned. The Sage didn't bother to learn the rules before making ruling. He based the ruling upon highly suspect illogical assumptions. He appears to have seen a question, cracked his 3.5 PHB, glanced for a few seconds and then made a ruling. As WotC's rules expert, he needs to do more than that before speaking for them.

As a LOOSE analogy: Consider the Sage to be something akin to an athlete's agent. He represents an entertainment entity by speaking for them. If an agent went around misquoting his client's contract or making promises for the athlete without checking to make sure the athlete could back up those promises, the agent would be fired.

I don't expect perfection from the Sage. I do expect professionalism. He speaks in an official capacity for WotC - a business. If he can't do the job correctly, he shouldn't be doing it.